U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–801PDF 2013

RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL

CHILD ABDUCTIONS TO NON–HAGUE

CONVENTION COUNTRIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 9, 2013

Serial No. 113–58

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Susan Jacobs, Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State .................................................. 6

Ms. Patricia Apy, Attorney, Paras, Apy & Reiss, P.C. ......................................... 37

Ms. Bindu Philips, Mother of Children Abducted to India .................................. 52

Mr. Michael Elias, Father of Children Abducted to Japan .................................. 64

Mr. Colin Bower, Father of Children Abducted to Egypt ..................................... 74

Mr. David Goldman, Father of Child Abducted to Brazil .................................... 86

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Susan Jacobs: Prepared statement .............................................. 8

Ms. Patricia Apy: Prepared statement ................................................................... 43

Ms. Bindu Philips: Prepared statement ................................................................. 55

Mr. Michael Elias: Prepared statement ................................................................. 68

Mr. Colin Bower: Prepared statement ................................................................... 79

Mr. David Goldman: Prepared statement ............................................................. 94

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 108

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 109

Written responses from the Honorable Susan Jacobs to questions submitted 

for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee 

on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations ................................................................................................................... 110

Written responses from the Honorable Susan Jacobs to questions submitted 

for the record by the Honorable Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina .............................................................. 116

(1)

RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL 

CHILD ABDUCTIONS TO NON–HAGUE 

CONVENTION COUNTRIES 

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The committee will come to order, and I want to 

thank all of you for joining us this morning to focus once again on 

the persistent and devastating problem of international parental 

child abduction, which occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a 

child from his or her country of residence, often for the purpose of 

denying the other parent access to the child. 

The damage to the child and the left-behind parent is incalculable, and often lifelong. The children especially are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems, and may experience 

anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness. 

These victims are American citizens who need the help of their 

Government when normal legal processes are unavailable or failed. 

In 1983, the United States ratified the Hague Convention on the 

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to try to address 

this serious issue. This convention creates a civil framework for a 

quick return of abducted children, and for rights of access to both 

parents. Absent extenuating circumstances, the child is to be returned within 6 weeks to his or her country of habitual residence 

for the courts there to decide on custody, or to enforce any previous 

custody determinations. 

The Convention has helped return many children, but it is far 

from a silver bullet. Even in countries where the Convention is allegedly working, only about 40 percent of the children are returned. 

Other cases are ‘‘resolved’’ but too often with dubious application 

of the Convention. Susceptible to abuse by taking parents or unwilling judges, the Convention has too often been stretched to provide cover for the abduction, rather than recovery of the child. 

Taking parents have figured out that they can drag out hearing 

after hearing, appeal after appeal, for years, until the courts can 

2

claim yes, the child should have been returned, but that the child 

has settled in a new country by that point and does not have to 

be returned under an exception in the Convention. 

Some Hague Convention signatories are simply not enforcing legitimate return orders. The State Department’s 2012 Hague Convention Compliance Report highlights five countries—Argentina, 

Australia, France, the Netherlands, and Romania—for failing to 

enforce return orders. Other countries—Costa Rica, Guatemala, the 

Bahamas, Brazil, and Panama—are non-compliant with the Convention, or showing patterns of non-compliance. In other words, abducted American children are not coming home from these countries, and American families, I would respectfully submit, need 

other options. 

The same is true for many countries that have not signed the 

Hague Convention. In 2012 alone, more than 634 children were abducted to countries that have not signed the Hague Convention, 

countries like Japan, Egypt, and India. More than 300 children 

have suffered abduction from the United States to Japan since 

1994. Congress does not know of a single case in which the Government of Japan has issued and enforced an order for the return of 

an abducted child to the United States. 

According to the U.S. Department of State’s statistics, the United 

States is monitoring 54 ongoing cases involving 74 children who 

were abducted from the U.S. to Japan, and 21 additional children 

from the United States who may not have been abducted, but who 

are being denied access to their American parent. Although Japan 

has taken steps, including this morning, to join the Hague Convention, Japan’s ratification will not address current cases for return. 

Moreover, experts question whether the ratification includes reservations that will make it nearly impossible for even new abduction cases to be resolved with returns. 

The United States does not have a bilateral or other agreement 

with Japan to facilitate the return of American citizen children 

who are currently abducted, citizens like Jade and Michael Elias, 

whose father will testify before us today. 

Under the Convention alone, if ratified by Japan, the best that 

American parents of currently abducted children can hope for is, 

perhaps, a visit with their child. Such visits are projected to look 

like 1 hour, once a month, in a secure facility. Hardly dignified or 

unfettered. 

Despite our multi-billion dollar investment in Egypt, neither the 

Mubarak government nor the Morsi government has seen fit to return abducted American children Noor and Ramsay Bower. They, 

along with 30 other American children in Egypt, are forced to live 

without half of their culture, half of their identity, and without the 

love and guidance of an American parent who fights daily for their 

return. The United States does not have a bilateral agreement with 

Egypt to facilitate the return of American citizen children, and has 

so far been unwilling to make prioritization of these cases a condition for the continued funding of the Egyptian Government. 

India has also been a source of immense frustration and grief for 

American parents. In 2012, 32 more children were abducted to 

India, bringing the total number to 78 open abduction cases involving 94 children. Although some Indian courts make Hague-like deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

cisions to return some children, returns are at best uneven. Parents attempting to utilize India’s courts for the return of abducted 

children report corruption and incessant delays. The United States 

does not have a bilateral agreement with India, either, to facilitate 

the return of American citizen children to the United States. 

In the last Congress, I introduced legislation which we entitled 

the Sean and David Goldman Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, and I will reintroduce it shortly, to impress both upon the 

Hague and non-Hague Convention countries alike that the United 

States will not tolerate abduction or have patience with countries 

that hide abductors behind the Hague Convention. 

The bill would empower the President and the Department of 

State with new tools, and I would say necessary tools, and authorities, to secure the return of abducted American children. When a 

country has shown a pattern of non-cooperation in resolving child 

abduction cases, the President will be able to respond decisively 

with a range of 18 actions and penalties. Based on past experience, 

particularly with the Goldman case in Brazil, we know that penalties manage to get the attention of other governments and help 

them prioritize resolution. 

The bill also calls for the State Department to work out memorandums of understanding with countries that have not signed the 

Hague Convention in order to create agreed-upon routes to abduction resolution between countries, rather than the neverending and 

torturous maze Americans are currently forced to run. 

The status quo, despite best intentions, is simply not adequate. 

And while well-meaning and sincere, current policy has failed far 

too many children and their left-behind and brokenhearted parents. 

To combat the cruelty and exploitation of human trafficking, over 

a decade ago I authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. To 

tangibly assist abducted American children—and this is a human 

rights violation—and their left-behind parents, I again am introducing the Sean and David Goldman Child Abduction Prevention 

and Return Act of 2013. The United States can, and I believe must, 

do more to protect innocent American children and their left-behind parents from the absolute horrors of international child abduction. 

I now turn to my friend and colleague, Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding today’s 

hearing on a topic that deserves this committee and Congress’ full 

attention. Chairman Smith, I also want to commend you for your 

efforts to address this ongoing issue and the many challenges to 

ensuring that abducted children are returned to loving, caring and 

safe homes. 

And while today’s hearing is on international child abduction, I 

think it’s an important moment to acknowledge the extraordinary 

and harrowing developments of the three young women who won 

their freedom earlier this week in Cleveland. These people have endured a horrendous ordeal, and their nightmare is now over. We 

can all breathe a sigh of relief that they are back with their families and a new brighter chapter in their lives can begin. They will 

continue to be in our thoughts and our prayers. 

I would also like to offer my gratitude to the witnesses for their 

testimony today—I would particularly welcome Ambassador JaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
4

cobs—and for the important work that is being done on this critical 

subject. 

Today’s hearing is vitally important because children who have 

been abducted internationally can experience extreme stress and 

confusion. Not only have they been taken from a parent, but they 

must also live and adapt to a place that is foreign to them in many 

ways. These are terrible events that no parent or child should ever 

have to endure, and as we approach International Child Abduction 

Day on May 25th, I am pleased that we are able to address the full 

complexity of these challenges around this issue. 

The complications associated with returning abducted children to 

the United States from countries that are non-signatories to the 

Hague Convention are very difficult and troublesome, yet not 

unresolvable, and holding this hearing is one step in the right direction. I hope the committee will also focus on the occurrence of 

domestic violence and child abuse in child abduction cases. There 

are many examples where parents who flee with a child do so to 

escape environments that are unsafe and, frankly, dangerous. This, 

too, deserves our critical attention and focus. 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and recommendations on 

resolving international parental child abductions, and I thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman, and would like to yield to my colleague——

Mr. SMITH. No, I will yield. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this 

hearing on this important topic. And I want to thank the witnesses, obviously, and Ambassador Jacobs, thank you for being 

here. The witnesses that will testify in our second panel, we appreciate your willingness to tell your story. 

This seems to be a problem that simply is not addressed by current law or policy, and what I look forward to hearing from you, 

Ambassador Jacobs, is, as we start to look at that—we know that 

you are in a difficult situation where you have got law, policy, regulations—how we can be the heavy, how Congress can be the heavy 

and say, ‘‘This must stop, and this is the law of the land,’’ and how 

we can do that to help facilitate you on doing your job. Because obviously you wouldn’t be here today if you didn’t have a heart for 

these children, and we appreciate your willingness to be here. 

We know that as of January, the number of open cases in the 

international parental child abduction in the Office of Children’s 

Issues was some 1,113 cases involving some 1,575 children, and of 

these cases 649 of them, or 941 of the children, were in Hague Convention partner countries. But another 464 of those, or 634 children, were in non-Hague Convention countries. And so that presents an issue, and obviously this means that there is a significant 

portion of these abducted kids who are going to countries where 

there is virtually no ability for them to reach out to their families, 

and for their families to reach them. And this situation is just unacceptable. 

We obviously live in a global world, and perhaps a global solution 

is part of this particular issue. But we want to act as Congress, 

and I want to support the chairman in his efforts to make sure 

that we have legislation, and bring and highlight the fact that it 

5

needs to be addressed. And you know, child abduction is really 

child abuse. And when we see that—we have seen the effects of 

child abuse. And what we cannot do—we have a moral obligation 

to not allow that to happen. 

So I thank the ranking member here today for his willingness to 

join in a bipartisan way to address this issue, and I’m hopeful that 

we can develop some effective solutions that not only attack this 

difficult issue, but puts forward a way that we can move forward 

so that we can reunite these families. 

And I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Meadows. I need to go to 

members of the committee first, and then I will go to Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Weber, Randy Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am good. I am 

really here to listen and to learn. I applaud you, Madam Ambassador, for being here, and I look forward to the testimony, and 

being able—as my colleague, Mr. Meadows, said—to help make a 

difference. So I am anxious to listen. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Kennedy, not a 

member of the committee, but most welcome. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me 

to speak this morning and join all of you, even though I do not sit 

on this subcommittee. I am honored to welcome Colin Bower, a constituent from Newton, and most importantly a devoted father to his 

two sons, Noor and Ramsay. Mr. Bower will be joining us on a 

panel a little bit later this morning. 

As this panel knows, Mr. Bower has worked tirelessly to try to 

bring his two children home to the United States, after they were 

abducted by their mother in 2009. Despite a court ruling that gave 

him full custody and a subsequent Egyptian court order granting 

him the right to visit with his children, Colin has continually been 

denied the opportunity to visit his sons. 

Well, he has never given up hope. We must do more than just 

hope. As elected officials, every person on this dais feels a passionate responsibility to help our constituents, and we must remain 

vigilant and committed to all American children who are far from 

home, far from their families, through no fault of their own. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to join you today. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of Ambassador Jacobs and 

the families later this morning, and to the commitment of the 

members of the panel. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

It is now my privilege and honor to welcome to the committee 

Ambassador Susan Jacobs, who currently serves as Special Advisor 

in the Office of Children’s Issues at the U.S. Department of State. 

Ambassador Jacobs has had a long and distinguished career in the 

Foreign Service, in which she has served around the world, including in Papua New Guinea, where she was the Ambassador. And 

she has also held a number of senior positions with the State Department here in Washington, serving as liaison to both Congress 

and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Ambassador Jacobs, the floor is yours. 

6

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN JACOBS, SPECIAL 

ADVISOR FOR CHILDREN’S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify again before you on the Department of State’s 

efforts to prevent international parental child abduction, to resolve 

existing cases, and to encourage all sovereign nations to join the 

United States in membership in the Hague Abduction Convention. 

I would like to speak about the two main points of my written 

statement: The important work of the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

Office of Children’s Issues in promoting the Hague Abduction Convention and our work in ensuring compliance with the Convention. 

I ask that my full written statement be entered into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. The Department of State has no 

higher priority than to safeguard the welfare of children who have 

been wrongfully abducted across international borders. My experience over the past few years, as the Special Advisor for Children’s 

Issues, has convinced me that the Hague Abduction Convention is 

the best tool for resolving cases of international parental child abduction, or IPCA. Of course, the prevention of IPCA is our priority 

as well, and my written testimony describes the work of our dedicated officers on this front. In those unfortunate circumstances 

where an abduction does take place, we turn to the Convention 

whenever it is available as a possible remedy. This has been the 

focus of my work since Secretary Clinton appointed me in 2010. 

The Hague Convention is a multilateral international treaty that 

allows us, in our highly interconnected world, to work harmoniously across cultures, borders, and legal systems. As you all 

know, however, there are many cases involving children abducted 

to countries where the Convention is not an available remedy. One 

of our top priorities is to engage bilaterally and multilaterally with 

those foreign governments to explain why the Convention is beneficial and to encourage expanded Convention partnership throughout the world. 

Last year, the United States welcomed Singapore and Morocco as 

new treaty partners, and we were pleased to see several other nations, including South Korea, Russia, and Lesotho, accede to the 

Convention and take steps to institute effective implementation. 

Parents, of course, want to know what we are doing specifically 

to help their children when the Abduction Convention is not an option for them to seek their child’s return. In those cases, unfortunately, the options for seeking the return of a child are far more 

limited, thus underscoring why the Convention membership is critical as we move forward. 

The Office of Children’s Issues works closely with those parents 

to provide information about domestic and foreign resources that 

may help them to resolve their children’s cases. We raise individual 

cases with foreign governments, requesting through diplomatic 

channels that they return abducted children to the United States. 

We assist parents to obtain access, confirm their children’s welfare, 

and understand their options. We monitor legal proceedings as the 

case unfolds in the court, and we attend hearings when approVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

priate. We also engage child welfare authorities and advocate for 

counselor and parental access. 

In addition, we coordinate with law enforcement authorities 

when parents choose to pursue criminal remedies and work every 

day to explore all available and appropriate options for the return 

of children to their habitual residence. 

In countries where the Convention is available, the Office of 

Children’s Issues works to promote Convention compliance. Again, 

we have a variety of tools at our disposal. Among these are judicial 

seminars, legal information and infrastructure guidance, and ongoing monitoring as part of the annual compliance report to Congress. We follow individual cases very closely. We coordinate with 

parents and their attorneys to provide information and updates. 

We also review judicial decisions for compliance. 

But it is important to keep in mind that there are times when 

proper application of the Convention does not result in a child’s return to the United States. When this happens, we stand by to provide parents with information about pursuing access to the child 

under the Convention, as well as providing all other appropriate 

assistance. 

Today, the Office of Children’s Issues provides full support to my 

efforts, as well as those of Secretary Kerry and the entire Department, to increase the number of children returned to their parents, 

to advocate for membership in the treaty, and to create safeguards 

that will minimize the risk of international parental child abduction. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in conclusion 

I want to assure you that we continue to develop programs and 

outreach to prevent abductions through increasing awareness of 

this issue. Your support remains a key element to our success. Congressional interest is crucial as we encourage other countries to 

join the Convention and continue bilateral discussions to resolve 

existing cases that fall outside the Convention framework. I will be 

very happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jacobs follows:]

8


80801a-1.eps
9


80801a-2.eps
10


80801a-3.eps
11


80801a-4.eps
12


80801a-5.eps
13


80801a-6.eps
14


80801a-7.eps
15


80801a-8.eps
16


80801a-9.eps
17


80801a-10.eps
18


80801a-11.eps
19


80801a-12.eps
20


80801a-13.eps
21


80801a-14.eps
22


80801a-15.eps
23

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ambassador. Let me thank 

you for your testimony, and for the work of your office and yourself. 

Part of the concern that many of us have is that your office, assuming and believing that there is nothing but good will there, 

doesn’t have the sufficient tools to get the job done. And I would 

hope—and you may not want to comment on it today, but I know 

you have seen the legislation. But as I said in my opening statement, our hope is to empower you, and empower the Secretary of 

State and the President, as we did with the International Religious 

Freedom Act—and as you know, the penalties, starting with a simple demarche on to very significant penalties, is derived verbatim 

from the IRFA legislation of 1998, which went through my committee and is authored by Congressman Frank Wolf. And it parallels very closely what we did on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 

Both of those initiatives were strongly opposed, especially IRFA, 

by the Clinton administration, but he signed them at the end of the 

day, both of those pieces of legislation. I know that human rights 

enforcement, if we assume good will on the part of a country, without a penalty phase, becomes somewhere between slim and none in 

most cases. That was a lesson learned from those two landmark 

laws that we are trying to apply now to child abduction. 

If you wanted to comment on the legislation, because the new bill 

will be very similar to the old, but with some significant upgrades. 

Would you like to comment on it? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, sir. We look forward to working 

with you on it. We would welcome seeing the new legislation and 

discussing it with staff at your earliest opportunity. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I would hope you would. And I hope—you 

know, because time delay is denial for a left-behind parent and for 

a child. I mean, this legislation can move and should move quickly. 

It has been delayed far too long for whatever reasons, so we really 

need to, on both the congressional side and the executive branch 

side, come to a consensus and get this done. 

I noted in your testimony you talked about Japan, and we are 

all looking forward to a ratification. I am very concerned that the 

caveats and the reservations may be onerous, and may lead to very 

few resolutions where the child is actually returned. But you noted 

in your testimony that it will be entered into force automatically, 

it will immediately be applicable to the U.S. situation. 

And yet, when you talked about Korea, you said that the Department needs to study the Republic of Korea’s implementation of the 

treaty, its domestic legislation, institutions and the like. It seems 

to me that Japan, with its sole custody laws and other hindrances, 

particularly in its family law, raises very significant barriers to a 

successful—I am wondering why the difference between Korea and 

Japan. 

Why isn’t Korea entering into force now? 

Ambassador JACOBS. The reason is because Japan was a member 

of the Hague Conference when the treaty was written in 1980, and 

every country that was a member of the conference, of the Hague 

Conference, automatically becomes a party to the Convention without anyone else having to do anything. 

Mr. SMITH. So regardless of how infirm their laws might be? 

24

Ambassador JACOBS. Regardless, that is the way the conference 

works. Korea was not a member of the Hague Conference then, and 

so we have to check that the central authority has proper authorities, that there is a judicial system and law enforcement to make 

sure that the treaty will work. 

So there is a big difference, and I can understand the concern. 

Mr. SMITH. Congress has made several requests to be informed 

of the number of children returned to the U.S. in 2011 and 2012, 

as had previously been the practice of the State Department, but 

we have not received a response. Do you know why? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I am sorry, but I don’t. I will find out for 

you and let you know. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And more importantly, if we could get those 

numbers——

Ambassador JACOBS. I will see what I can find out. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. That would be very good. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think one of the things that is important 

to remember is that there is always something behind the numbers. The numbers are not the complete story. And so we look forward to working with your staff——

Mr. SMITH. Well, we are concerned about a breakout with actual 

returns, and then others that are deemed resolved but really there 

was no return. And that differentiation is something that it would 

be very helpful for policymakers to know. So if you could include 

that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I will see what I can find out. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Could you get that to us? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I will get you an answer. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you about memorandums of understanding and bilateral agreements. When I went with the Eliases 

to Japan, I met with members of the Diet, members of the government, our own Embassy people, who obviously were very empathetic. 

But as you know, children are not coming home from Japan. 

Whether the abductor is a father or a mother, it continues to be 

a serious, serious problem. In the case of Michael Elias, as you 

know, his former wife worked for the Japanese Government. And 

the judge, when custody was being decided, took the passports and 

said, ‘‘No travel.’’ She went and had a duplicate set made, because 

she worked for the government, and then whisked off with the two 

children. And as far as I know, there has been no real investigation, no penalty, no sanctioning, of that young woman for that terrible act of not just abduction, but also fraud, in terms of the passports. 

And one of the several conversations that I have had with your 

office, and with Ambassadors around the world who are dealing 

with this, particularly in non-Hague countries, is the compelling 

need to have a bilateral agreement. We do it on adoption in many 

cases, where there are gaps, even with those that have signed the 

inter-country adoption Hague Convention. But with Japan, it 

seems to me, the opportunity is ripe for an agreement. 

Good will, you know, only goes so far. And like I said, for Michael 

Elias, who is sitting there, and all the other left-behind parents, 

25

delay is denial. And why not an agreement? Hammer out an agreement for a modality to work this out. 

You know, the British have such an agreement with Pakistan, 

and it works. And it works well. Patricia Apy, in her testimony, 

will be speaking to that later on today. I mean, it is a vehicle that 

will undoubtedly yield positive results. I see no downside. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, I am going to have to disagree with 

you, sir. We have three bilateral—we have three memoranda of understanding with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. There is no enforcement mechanism, and we have had no returns under those memoranda. We believe that the Hague Convention provides the best opportunity for resolving these cases. And it took Japan—I think that 

the problems, one of the problems in Japan, is their belief about 

custody, that one parent is supposed to drop out of the child’s life 

when there is a divorce. But we see that these things are changing, 

and that Japan is moving to a more global understanding of what 

custody is, and how both parents need to participate in a child’s 

life. 

So we hope that, when they are soon a party to the Convention, 

we will be able to work with them on compliance and access, and 

make sure that parents do get to see their children for more than 

an hour a week. I agree with you that that is not access. 

Mr. SMITH. But I would just say, even though the examples with 

Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan—I mean, Egypt went from a dictatorship that was elected but maybe falsely, under Mubarak, and I met 

with him so I know what he was like, to Morsi who has gone from 

bad to worse. Jordan is a good friend. Lebanon, obviously, has 

many problems. 

I mean, against those examples, Japan and India are mature democracies with functioning Parliaments. I mean, the Diet and the 

Parliament in New Delhi have checks and balances. It seems to me 

that they are major world players. They purport to follow the rule 

of law. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the reluctance. 

It can only be value added. It can only add an additional mechanism. If it brings home one child, it will be well worth the effort. 

I believe it would bring home many children, and that it would 

start a process that might even have a chilling effect on future abductions. 

One of the things that Bindu will testify to—do you agree with 

that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think that we will have better success 

with Japan and India when they are members of the Abduction 

Convention. 

Mr. SMITH. But again, all of the current cases with Japan are 

grandfathered out. And to assume that there will be a reservoir of 

good will created, I think, given their past—past is often prologue—we need some game-changers. And an MOU, I believe, 

would do that. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think, for the cases that are not covered 

by the Convention, that we do need to reach an agreement with 

Japan. I agree with you, and we will be working with them to see 

what we can do, and also with our partners, who were incredibly 

helpful in working with us to persuade Japan to join the Convention. 

26

Mr. SMITH. So then you would be for an agreement with Japan. 

Ambassador JACOBS. We will explore every avenue to get those 

children home. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Again, I would hope that the sooner that is initiated, because the agony—as you know so well—I don’t know how 

people—and you have met many of these people as well, as have 

your staff. When you sit and look them in the eyes, and realize that 

they lose hope, one of the—again, Bindu will testify that, when she 

went for help to our folks in India, that is to say U.S. Embassy personnel, she was told that there was very little they could do because she didn’t have custody. She then got custody, and she has 

told me and, I believe, will testify to that, but she told me earlier 

today, because I asked her, that she still hasn’t gotten help. 

And in your testimony, you cite a case: ‘‘We are encouraged by 

a recent decision in the High Court of New Delhi to return a child 

to her country of habitual residence for a final determination of 

custody.’’ I mean, it is one case. I don’t know what country you are 

talking about. Is it the U.S.? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is a return to the United States, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, it is? Okay. Do you see a precedent in that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I see hopeful signs that judges are making 

the right decisions. And we will continue to work with India to encourage them to continue to make those kinds of decisions while 

they write their implementing legislation to join the Convention. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Again, it takes effort, but a bilateral agreement there as well could bring these two children home. I mean, 

based on all of the available court evidence, this man has acted—

her ex-husband—with absolute impunity, which is why she is here 

today to testify. And so I would hope our efforts in-country would 

be redoubled on her behalf as well, if you could commit to that. 

That would be very helpful. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. I do have other questions, but I will yield to my 

friend, and then come back. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador Jacobs, for your testimony. 

I just want to focus for a moment on the Hague Convention and 

compliance with that, because I agree that ensuring as many countries as possible become signatories of the Convention is the best 

and most effective way to ensure the return of American children, 

and so I was struck by a comment you made about some examples 

where compliance with the Hague Convention does not result in 

the return of the child. 

I take it that is not because of a failure in the current drafting 

of the Convention requirements, but just the parent who was seeking return is not—I mean, I am looking for an example of where 

that might happen. Is there something we need to address or revisit with the Convention protocols, in particular? 

Ambassador JACOBS. No. Thank you for that question. There is 

a section of the Convention, and it is called 13(b). Where there is 

a grave risk to the child, the child doesn’t necessarily have to be 

returned to its habitual residence. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. Great. And I noticed in your written testimony that in June 2011, the parties to the Hague Convention did 

27

an examination and made some conclusions and recommendations, 

and some of those conclusions were that applications for returns 

had increased, but the number of returns had decreased. 

What is the reason for that? Are there things we can be doing 

about that? And are you sort of satisfied with the current provisions of the Hague Convention, that if parties are signatories and 

comply, it does what it is expected to do? 

Ambassador JACOBS. If countries—that is a great question. Because if countries comply, it works very well. And we are—the treaty is a living thing, and we are constantly working with our partners in the Convention to help them comply better with it, which 

is why we have the compliance report and we cite countries when 

they aren’t doing the right thing, when the central authorities don’t 

communicate with us or when law enforcement doesn’t enforce 

what the courts are doing, or, in many countries, where court 

delays really delay the return of a child. 

And what you are citing in June 2011, there was a special commission meeting where we had the opportunity to meet with all of 

our partners and to talk about compliance and best practices. And 

this is something that we continually strive for. We try to improve 

our practices, and we certainly try to educate other countries on 

how they can do a better job in enforcing the Convention. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But are we still seeing increased applications, 

meaning people are relying on or having confidence that this is a 

mechanism by which they will have the children returned, but in 

fact seeing a decrease in the number of children that are actually 

returned? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We have seen an increase in returns, especially from Mexico. We have a very productive relationship with 

Mexico. We have worked very hard at it. And we are getting much 

better at cooperation. There are some Hague countries where we do 

have problems, and where we have problems we work with them, 

we visit them and talk to them very frankly about what they need 

to do. Sometimes it works. It worked with St. Kitts. It was only one 

case, but they finally wrote their implementing legislation and now 

are enforcing the Convention. 

But it is an ongoing process. We have working groups with a 

number of countries. We meet jointly and we do everything we can 

to persuade countries to implement the Convention properly. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And Ambassador Jacobs, what are your thoughts 

on the use of sanctions against countries that either violate the 

Convention and are signatories, or as a condition of United States 

assistance being required to become a signatory? For example, obligating in exchange for U.S. foreign aid, or some preferential trade 

status, that there be a condition that you be a signatory on the 

Hague Convention as it relates to abducted children. I mean, is 

that effective? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you for the question. I think that 

sanctions are a two-edged sword. I think that threatening countries 

is often an unsuccessful way to get them to cooperate with us, because most of the relationships that we have are very complex and 

involve many issues. So to use Japan as an example, we have defense arrangements with Japan. We have trade arrangements. 

28

The return of these children is incredibly important to us, and 

we pledge to work to do the best we can to get these children returned, but I don’t think that we are going to sanction Japan, or 

threaten them with sanctions, because I think that would be detrimental to our bilateral relationship. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But how about countries in which, for example—

just to use Egypt as an example—that are significant recipients of 

foreign aid? 

Would it be an effective—I mean, I don’t know whether those 

conversations take place at a much higher level than both of us, 

but it seems like an obvious question to say, in the moment when 

we’re providing substantial foreign aid, that while it may not warrant or it may be difficult to have an individual conversation about 

an individual case, a broader policy requirement of sort of signing 

on to a treaty such as this might be something that would yield 

some results. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It might, but it might also mean that they 

won’t cooperate with us at all if they feel that they’re being threatened. Egypt is a country in transition, and we are mightily trying 

to influence the direction that it takes. This is one of the issues 

that we raise constantly. 

The Ambassador—we have 20 cases in Egypt, and she raises this 

issue with the President, with the Foreign Minister, and with others all the time. I have made a number of trips to Egypt, most recently in March, to raise these issues. And the Egyptians listen. I 

think they hear the message. And we are hoping that they will be 

able to do something about it. 

One thing that I think will help us is when we become a party 

to the 1996 Hague Convention on Protection of Children, which includes the recognition of foreign court orders, and then we might 

not have to go through all the Hague procedures, but we would be 

able, with our partners, to present a court order and that would be 

recognized. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you for raising that. I agree with you, and 

I hope we will join that. And I yield back, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I will yield to myself for just a moment 

to make a point. 

You know, with Egypt, there is no MOU dealing with abduction. 

There is no MOU with Egypt, or bilateral agreement. It has to do 

with access, not with return, according to the Department of 

State’s Web site. Not with return, it has everything to do with just 

having access to the child. 

So I think, just a point of—if I could just make a point on the 

sanctions issue. Sitting right where you sit, John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor under Bill 

Clinton, testified against the International Religious Freedom Act, 

citing opposition to sanctions. Madeleine Albright was unalterably 

opposed to sanctions when it came to combatting human trafficking. At the end of the day, Bill Clinton signed the bill. He was 

presented a bipartisan bill, and I know, because I authored it. 

But we had total bipartisanship. Sam Gejdenson, from nearby 

Connecticut, was the prime co-sponsor, and we worked hand in 

glove together on that legislation. But the administration was 

29

against sanctions, and they made the exact case, exact, verbatim, 

that you just made, that sanctions are two-edged sword and can be 

counterproductive. 

We give the President tools. He doesn’t have to use them. Hopefully he will, the threat of sanctions, and then when you have an 

egregious violator—and remember, these are American kids. American human rights are being violated, and American parents. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I understand that, and I appreciate your 

passion for this. But I would argue that abduction and trafficking 

are two very different things. Trafficking in children is horrible. 

Abduction is horrible. But they are very different. 

Mr. SMITH. Evidence clearly suggests that the child is injured 

very seriously, particularly psychologically. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I didn’t say they weren’t. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. But the trafficking, it is my understanding 

that our laws cover trafficking for sex or for labor. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And this isn’t that. This is a wrongful removal from the other parent’s custody, and I think that we would 

be better off trying to enforce civil remedies to find a solution to 

these problems. And if we can do this outside of the Convention, 

I think that would be great, but we have had very limited success 

in doing that. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I just say, with deep respect, that—and David 

Goldman will testify to this—that the return rates are almost identical for non-Hague and Hague countries, just below 40 percent. I 

am all for the Hague Convention, but it has proven itself to lack 

enforcement, and we are saying that when it comes to our children 

and our left-behind parents, we want additional tools in the toolbox 

to provide for enforcement, because their human rights have been 

egregiously violated. As you know, you now have Brazil back on the 

list. I am not sure why there have been problems there. It is another question. But I really should yield to Mr. Meadows, and then 

I will come back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ambassador. And I understand some 

of your diplomatic issues that you have to deal with from trying to 

balance diplomacy at the same time as trying to make sure that 

we protect the rights of parents, U.S. parents and children that 

have been abducted. 

And so I want to follow up a little bit on my opening statements. 

And it has been mentioned here about sanctions and aid, and those 

kinds of things. We have to figure out legislatively, and as I look 

at the numbers from the Hague Convention, if you exclude some 

of the results—well, if you exclude Mexico, where we have had 

some successes, there, if we start to look at this, it doesn’t look like 

there is really a big difference in terms of the return rate, whether 

they are in one or the other. We still have a third of the children 

that are in non-Hague countries, according to your testimony, and 

I think two thirds of them in Hague Convention countries, that are 

still not being returned. 

But as you look at that, is there a huge difference in terms of 

the return rate with regards to it? There doesn’t appear to be, and 

maybe I am looking at it wrong. 

30

Ambassador JACOBS. No, I am sorry, you are not looking at it 

wrong. But the returns are not always under the Convention. Some 

of them are mediated agreements between the parents. Sometimes 

the parents just do the right thing and return the child. But in a 

Hague country, there is a legal framework for resolving these 

issues that are not available in non-Hague countries. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand the legal framework, but if the results are no different, then what benefit is the legal framework? I 

mean, if we have a legal right to get them back, and it is not doing 

anything better, then it doesn’t matter? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, without Hague, the parents are really 

on their own. They have to hire an attorney. They have to go to 

court——

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying that it is cheaper on the parents to get non-results? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is not cheaper, it is more that there is 

a clearer path to a resolution in a Hague country, and we can provide a lot more assistance. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. And again, I want to remind you of my 

opening statement. I believe your heart is to return these kids, and 

so I am just trying to be—I need you to be the diplomat. I need 

to be the jerk. Okay? To put it from an international point of view, 

what I want you to do is say, ‘‘Golly, I would be with you, but those 

guys in Congress are holding your funds,’’ or, ‘‘The guys in Congress are doing’’—what I need is, I need to provide you the tools 

where there is some motivation. 

I mean, I get requests every day from foreign nations, because 

we sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, wanting money. And yet, 

that is not my decision. But if it were, where you bring up these 

issues, there has to be a—if you got paid based on the number of 

kids that came back from abroad, it would be every day you were 

saying, ‘‘Well, how many people have come back?’’ And I am not 

saying that changes your motivation. It just highlights it some. 

And so I want to provide you the tools, and if you can give me 

some of those—I am a little troubled when we start talking about 

international law and its attack on U.S. sovereignty, when we start 

saying, ‘‘Well, we have got an international court that is going to 

decide this.’’ And I am not saying that you are saying that. But 

what I am concerned about is that, from a sovereignty standpoint, 

what can we do, in America, to provide an incentive for these countries to return our children? 

Ambassador JACOBS. First of all, your interest and having hearings like this send a very strong message to other countries. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And believe me, when I go, and I travel a 

lot, to Hague and non-Hague countries, I tell them that Congress 

is watching this closely, and that this is an incentive to do the 

right thing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Well, let me give you this, so we are clear 

on this, Ambassador, so you can take this and you can play this 

little short YouTube video wherever you need to play it. 

We are serious. And even if it goes beyond the normal just waiting, Congress is serious about resolving this. We have a bipartisan 

resolve in terms of wanting to resolve this, and so that you can 

31

take that message that, not only are you here today, but we have 

other witnesses that will be testifying, that we are going to continue to highlight it until the rule of law prevails. And we are not 

asking for some non-rule to be enforced. We are just saying the 

rule of law must be enforced, whether we have a bilateral agreement or not. 

And so that really is not a question as much as it is a statement 

that I want you to be able to use. So let me go on a little bit further. Because what we talked about, it sounds like most of what 

has been done is judicial seminars, compliance reports, those. And 

that can be very frustrating to a parent when they start to look at 

‘‘Okay, what do you need to do?’’ Well, you need to go and go to 

this judicial compliance review. 

And it is kind of like saying that, if you go to a seminar, it is 

going to get better. And what I want to make sure of is that I provide the tools that are necessary, not only from a prevention standpoint, but what do we have to do to make it going forward? 

Can you and your staff provide me with some recommendations 

that we might look at to introduce as legislation that might help 

you? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And then I want to finish up, because 

I think they are calling votes here, what would you say, in terms 

of that relationship, the only—you mentioned Mexico as being the 

one that you had the best options with, just because of our relationship with Mexico. What other countries would you say we need to 

model, from a standpoint of return rates, and how that could happen? I mean, is there anything to be learn from Mexico in terms 

of that, or is it just that we have a good relationship? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We have a good relationship with Mexico 

because we work very hard at it, and we do that with every country. 

And when we say judicial seminars, we have a Hague network 

of judges who travel at our request and work with the judges of 

other countries to explain how the treaty should be implemented 

and judged, and how cases should be decided. We have international visitors that come to meet with us, and we have lots of 

bilateral meetings to talk about the importance of the Convention 

and proper implementation. But we have some ideas on other 

things that can be done, because, as I said, it is a living document, 

and it can always be improved upon, as can the compliance of 

every country that is a party to it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Well, I believe my time is up, and so I will 

yield back to the chairman from Texas. But as I do that, I want 

to say thank you for coming. Again, I look forward to those specific 

recommendations, and I can assure you that, from a legislative 

standpoint, I will work with my colleagues opposite here to make 

sure that we act on those. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER [presiding]. Thank you. Now, without objection, I will 

yield to my colleague, Mr. Kennedy from Massachusetts. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It sounds 

good to say that. 

Ambassador Jacobs, I want to thank you again for your testimony this morning. You have worked with my office for the safe 

32

return of both Noor and Ramsay to their father, and I want to 

thank you again for all of your work. As you know and as you have 

mentioned, the political situation in Egypt at this moment is complex and complicated, but we can’t let that stop us from working 

for the safe return of abducted Americans. 

You mentioned in your testimony the lengths to which Secretary 

Kerry will go through his diplomatic channels to fight for the rights 

of Americans, and that nowhere has that been more evident than 

with his efforts as both Senator and now as Secretary of State, 

with regards to Mr. Bower. Egypt, as you also mentioned, is an 

emerging democracy that is struggling with the transition from 

decades of dictatorship. It has a long history with the United 

States, and is an important stabilizer to a volatile region. 

However, the United States has an obligation to its citizens to 

see that our laws are enforced, and that the rights of our citizens 

will not be infringed by blatantly illegal acts. A father has a right 

to expect that he can see his children, and a citizenry has the right 

to expect that its government will do all it can to enforce the legal 

obligations on its people. 

Given that dynamic, how do you balance our role in the international community with the obligation to reunite two young American citizens with their father? I ask for your renewed commitment 

today to continue that fight against child abduction, and will be interested in hearing your thoughts on how we can move forward. 

And only a couple of moments, unfortunately, because our time is 

limited. But thank you. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I will speak quickly. Thank you, sir. We 

will continue to advocate in every country for the return of children 

who have been abducted. The Secretary has been very strong on 

his first trip, I think the trip to the Middle East was one of his first 

trips. He met with President Morsi and he raised all the abduction 

cases in Egypt. We are not going to forget about these cases. We 

are constantly thinking of ways that we can use our influence to 

persuade the Egyptians that this is something that they should do 

and recognize. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And Madam Ambassador, just to be a little more 

concrete on that—and I understand that you have been. You have 

been vocal about bringing these issues up through diplomatic channels. I have brought them up with the Egyptian Ambassador. I 

know Mr. Bower has, Secretary Kerry has. 

What more can we do, seeing that you have done much, but we 

are still not getting there? What are some concrete actions we can 

take moving forward to try to move the ball a little bit here? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think we just have to keep talking to the 

Egyptians. And you know, eventually diplomacy can work. And 

that is what we have to do. I don’t think that threatening the 

Egyptians is going to be effective. I don’t think that—we aren’t 

going to break relations with them. We are going to continue to 

talk to them, because we have to keep the channels of communication open so that they understand, yet again, how serious we are 

about resolving all of the cases in Egypt. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

33

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. And I have a couple of questions for you. You mentioned in your earlier testimony 

that abduction of children by one parent is not really viewed in the 

same light as trafficking, for example, and that it is more of a civil 

instance, I think you said, than a criminal. 

Is that accurate? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Parental abduction is a crime in the United 

States. 

Mr. WEBER. And that is the point I want us to get to, that under 

the International Parental Kidnapping Act, it is a crime. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is. 

Mr. WEBER. And so what would you say if I highlight the fact 

that, when you take a child, and one parent, who is supposed to 

be a trusted overseer, or guardian, if you will, uproots that child 

from the other parent, would you agree that that is pretty heinous? 

I mean, the child has got to be really confused, because here that 

child was in a loving, stable, hopefully stable, nurturing relationship with the other parent, in a safe environment, and now one 

parent has taken that child from the only home they have ever 

known to a foreign place. 

And not only that, but if they get to the point where they feel 

like our country has deserted them, the only home they have ever 

known, then is it safe to say that they would actually feel the double whammy, double effect, if you will, of the fact that one of their 

parents has betrayed them now, not only by uprooting them from 

the other parent and the only home they have ever known, in most 

instances, but now the only country they knew, it seems like, has 

turned their back on them. 

How do we mitigate that? What do we do about that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, I completely agree with you that it is 

a heinous act to abduct your child. But we haven’t forgotten about 

them, and we work in Hague countries with the central authorities 

for the return of children under the Convention, and bilaterally 

and multilaterally in countries that are not parties to the Hague. 

We do not forget about these children. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I——

Ambassador JACOBS. We work for them every single day. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, you, of course, certainly have been doing that 

through your work, and the very fact that we are passionate about 

that also. But does the child know that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t know what the child knows. 

Mr. WEBER. But what does——

Ambassador JACOBS. I think that the child is probably scared 

and confused and troubled——

Mr. WEBER. And kept in the dark. 

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. And kept in the dark about 

what has happened. We know that the taking parent often lies to 

the child, and says that the other child is not interested in them 

anymore. I just can’t imagine anything worse. I’m a mother and a 

grandmother, and it would be incredibly awful to have had one of 

my children abducted. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, thank you for that. Unfortunately, I am 

out of time. They are calling votes. I have got to go. So I am going 

34

to have to recess. Chairman Smith will be returning shortly. So if 

you don’t mind, stay put and stay tuned. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for your patience. And Ambassador, sorry 

for that break. 

Let me just ask you, if I could. I kind of hinted at this before, 

but Brazil is listed as demonstrating a pattern of non-compliance 

with the Hague Convention in the most recent abduction report. 

Can you explain what has happened there in Brazil? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I will be happy to. 

Mr. SMITH. Please. 

Ambassador JACOBS. While we have an excellent relationship 

with the central authority and meet with them frequently, judicial 

decisions take an awfully long time and we often find that they, in 

our view, are misinterpreting the Convention. And then, once there 

is a return order, it takes a long time for it to be enforced. So there 

is the law enforcement problem and the judicial decisions. 

Mr. SMITH. How many cases do we have in Brazil now? 

Ambassador JACOBS. One moment and I will look it up. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I am not sure, sir. I am going to have to 

get you that information. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t want to keep you waiting. 

Mr. SMITH. No, thank you. As I think you may know, the Japanese Foreign Minister reportedly said that if there is any chance 

that a taking parent could be prosecuted in the country of habitual 

residence, even if there is no pending charges, the child will not be 

returned. If that is accurate, that would mean that no children can 

be returned to the United States, where parental child abduction 

is a criminal offense. 

What is the State Department doing to ensure that the Japanese 

implementing legislation does not undermine the core principles of 

the Convention, or otherwise give the Japanese Government an excuse not to return an American child? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you for that question. The Convention does not have criminal penalties in it, because it is a private 

international law convention. So the idea is that the child is returned for a custody hearing in the country of habitual residence. 

The problems would arise if the parents had chosen to go to the 

FBI and filed a criminal case against the taking parent. 

Mr. SMITH. So they would be precluded an opportunity to use the 

Hague, as the Japanese see it, to permit that child to come home? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I am not sure. We would have to look at 

that. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, is it something that your office could raise, if 

you haven’t already? Because it seems to me that becomes a veto 

power. I mean, who can blame a left-behind parent for using every 

potential remedy at their disposal, including criminal sanctions, 

when such a horrible act has occurred? 

I mean, many have done that. And now they will be told ‘‘Tough 

luck.’’ I mean, that makes ratification of the Hague by Japan even 

more suspect, more of a sense of Japan—I mean, a sense of ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
35

gress-type legislation that we have here. But how will it be implemented? Not well. 

Ambassador JACOBS. That is the question. We are going to have 

to work very hard with Japan on proper implementation. But 

criminal charges against a taking parent often lead to a reluctance 

to return the child to the habitual residence, because they don’t 

want the parent thrown in jail. I mean, the whole idea of the 

Hague is to find civil remedies that will encourage the return of 

children. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Again, all the more reasons why a bilateral 

agreement could iron out those issues. Because I think the left-behind parents, like Michael Elias and all the others, Patrick Braden, 

all of them, will find themselves in even more of a maze, particularly if they took some legal action. 

Okay. So if you could take that back. 

I do hope, and I know it has probably been asked by my friend 

and colleague Mr. Kennedy, but I was wondering when Secretary 

Kerry was last in Egypt and provided a check to the tune of a 

quarter of a billion dollars, was the issue of child abduction on the 

table? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It was. 

Mr. SMITH. And was there any sense of movement on the part 

of Morsi to resolve these cases? 

Ambassador JACOBS. He said he would look into it, that he would 

take action. We are waiting. 

Mr. SMITH. And again, I know Mr. Cicilline mentioned this in 

talking about conditionality. I mean, Egypt does get an enormous 

amount of foreign aid from the U.S. Government, $1.3 billion, approximately. When we fought last year to include religious freedom 

conditionality, it was opposed by the administration. It got in, but 

it has been waived, regrettably, particularly because of the mistreatment of the Coptic Christians. 

But do you think conditionality on aid would be a wise tool? 

Again, it’s conditionality, it can be waived. The President would 

have that authority. But it would allow you and your staff, and our 

Ambassadors, and all those involved, to have additional clout. Because, again, I don’t assume good will with some of these governments when they show a pattern of either non-cooperation, or they 

are not compliant, if they are Hague signers. 

Ambassador JACOBS. That is a question I am going to have to get 

back to you on. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Do the others have any questions? No, they are 

all voting. 

Again, I thank you. I look forward to your answers, including 

some of the more just bookkeeping-type, accountability, as to children that have been returned, those that resolved that were not returned and what that means, if you could get back to us on that. 

Because there always seem to be some questions about what are 

the numbers, even when we have worked on legislation and we put 

findings, we get one number, and before the ink is dry it seems—

not because—I mean, huge differences, disparities. So please, get 

those numbers back to us. It would be very helpful. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I will take the issue back to the office. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I appreciate that. 

36

Ambassador JACOBS. Thanks. 

Mr. SMITH. I am planning a follow-up hearing, and maybe you 

or the Assistant Secretary for Asia might want to testify. Has that 

person been selected, do you know? 

Ambassador JACOBS. For what, sir? I am sorry. 

Mr. SMITH. For East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the Assistant Secretary. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Not that I am aware. 

Mr. SMITH. Or maybe the DAS would come up, to talk about 

Japan again, especially since things are happening there. And we 

do plan on having additional members, family members who have 

been left behind, testify. So I do hope you will just work with us 

on this, if you would. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I pledge that to you. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. 

I would like to now invite to the witness table our next panel, 

and maybe if they wouldn’t mind, we will wait until the other 

members come back, because they will want to hear what you have 

to say as well. So we stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing will resume its sitting, and I again 

apologize to our witnesses and to all here for the delay because of 

the voting on the floor. Some of our members are en route, coming 

back. 

And I will now introduce our witness table, beginning first with 

Patricia Apy, who is a partner in the law firm of Paras, Apy & 

Reiss, which specializes in complex family litigation, particularly 

international and interstate child custody litigation. 

Her qualifications for testifying at this hearing are unbelievably 

impressive and extensive. She has litigated and been qualified as 

an expert witness and consultant on international family disputes 

throughout the world. Ms. Apy frequently consults and is regularly 

qualified as an expert on family dispute resolution in non-Hague 

countries and risk factors for child abduction. 

She was also one of the lead attorneys for David Goldman, and 

provided expert advice and counsel in his long, arduous case, and 

has been, I would say, a very, very important and very wise guide 

to our deliberations as a subcommittee with regards to technical 

issues, because she has litigated and has been all over the world 

dealing with these issues. So I thank you, and I welcome her back. 

Bindu Philips came to the United States in 1996 and became a 

U.S. citizen in 2009. Ms. Philips has lived in New Jersey since 

2000, where her twin boys, Alfred and Albert were born 12 years 

ago. She is an electronic engineer by training, and works in central 

New Jersey, and will be testifying on behalf of her sons in an appeal to our Government, and of course to the Indian Government, 

to do the right thing and allow her not just access, but to allow her 

to have her sons back. 

We will then hear from Mr. Colin Bower, who is the father of 

Noor and Ramsay Bower. Noor and Ramsay were abducted by their 

mother from Boston to Egypt in August 2009. Colin remains comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
37

mitted to the safe and swift return—swift is now an oxymoron in 

his case—of his children. 

I am pleased to have joined Barney Frank last year in sponsoring 

H.Res. 193 with regard to their particular case in the last session 

of Congress, and we welcome him back to the committee. 

We will then hear from Michael Elias, who is a former sergeant 

in the United States Marine Corps and met his wife while stationed in Japan in 2004 to 2005. She abducted their two children, 

Jade and Michael, to Japan in December 2008. I traveled to Japan 

with Nancy and Miguel Elias, Jade and Michael’s grandparents—

and Nancy is here with us today—Michael’s mom and dad. I spent 

several days there meeting with high officials in the Japanese Government, and it was very clear that when they got to make their 

case, the Eliases were—there was an empathetic ear, especially 

from some of the members of the Diet, but the question is whether 

or not those empathetic ears turn into tangible policy that will permit the return of children who have been abducted. 

And then, finally, our cleanup batter, if you will, is David Goldman, who is the father of Sean Goldman, who was born in Red 

Bank in 2000. Sean was abducted to Brazil in 2004. Mr. Goldman 

spent 5 arduous years devoting enormous amounts of time and financial resources, and had a great number of people supporting 

him in the community, to secure the return of his beloved son. In 

December 2009, I had the privilege of being with David and Sean 

when they were finally able to return to the United States. 

Mr. Goldman has been a trailblazer in opening the eyes of our 

country to the agony endured by left-behind parents. I can say 

without any fear of contradiction, he did it like the left-behind parents who are here with us today, with great tact, with discipline. 

I remember being in a court where a man who was not the stepfather, but had custody, made so many disparaging remarks about 

him, and yet he remained steadfast, eyes fixed on the judge, and 

made the case as to why he absolutely had the right to have his 

son returned to him. 

So we welcome him back, and I would just note parenthetically 

that the legislation that we are introducing is named the Sean and 

David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act because there are successes that can be had, but levers 

need to be pulled, especially when you have a government that is, 

at best, indifferent. 

I would like to now ask, if you could, our first witness, Patricia 

Apy, if she would testify. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA APY, ATTORNEY, PARAS, APY & 

REISS, P.C. 

Ms. APY. Congressman Smith, thank you so much for permitting 

me to come back and address the subcommittee as it confronts 

international parental abduction, particularly abductions involving 

jurisdictions which have not ratified the Hague Convention on the 

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 

Interestingly enough, in listening to the testimony and the questions from members and Congressman Kennedy, I noticed that I 

have litigated cases, non-Hague cases, from each of the districts 

that are represented on the panel today. 

38

I have chosen two cases as demonstrative of the precise issue 

that we have here. I have been representing Michael Elias, one of 

the witnesses on this panel, in a pro bono capacity in response to 

the request of the former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Conway. This battle-wounded Marine discovered his two children had been abducted by their mother. Mr. 

Elias’ wife worked for the Consulate of Japan in New York, and 

with the help of the Japanese consulate authorities in Chicago was 

able to obtain the replacement of the children’s court ordered surrendered Japanese passports and abduct his children. 

Mr. Elias will share in his testimony that the Japanese Government not only failed to address the clearly criminal behavior of his 

wife, the complicity of their consulate in Chicago, but their duplicity in telling yourself, a member of this subcommittee, along with 

the grandparents of these children, that they were actively investigating the criminal behavior—which would have provided a basis 

for extradition, I might add—when in fact they had already determined that they had no intention of doing so. And that information 

would be purposely withheld from Mr. Elias, as well as from this 

committee, for over a year. 

Christopher Dahm’s daughter Gabrielle was abducted from her 

home in Florida to the United Arab Emirates, specifically Abu 

Dhabi, by her dual national Belgian mother. Gabrielle’s mother 

brazenly obtained a Belgian passport for her daughter without the 

knowledge of Gabrielle’s father, despite a Florida order which prohibited the issuance or the removal of Gabrielle from the United 

States. She abducted her with the assistance of the maternal 

grandfather, a pilot for Eithad Airlines, the national airlines of Abu 

Dhabi. That case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney 

in Miami, which participated in issuing Interpol red orders. 

I chose those two countries, first of all, because they would be described, I think by every individual, as countries with whom we 

enjoy positive relationships. We are partners in issues of commerce 

and in issues of security. No one would identify them as behaving 

purposefully inappropriately. And it is in that context of non-Hague 

cases that the legislation that is proposed is the most important, 

because by having legislation that provides a construct of available 

tools, these countries have a mechanism with which they can have 

a political will and a legal will to do what we know they want to 

do, which is partner with us to address this issue. 

I think it is missing something if you see this merely as punitive, 

because in fact the type of remedies and the type of sanctions that 

are suggested are those that, in many cases—and I am thinking 

particularly of the use of memoranda of understanding—those are 

the kinds of things that can be educative and positive and level the 

playing field in negotiating for a remedy. 

One of the most important things to know about non-treaty cases 

is that they present the most expensive and challenging cases for 

the left-behind parent. Parents are consigned to live in legal limbo 

for fear that their chance to locate or retrieve their child will be 

diminished by their actions. 

For example, fearful of ruining their case, in many countries they 

cannot be divorced from the kidnapping parent, because to do so 

would cease their ability to seek a return. There has been reference 

39

to criminal prosecution, and the implication of those references 

were that a parent might choose to engage in criminal prosecution 

rather than use the treaty—for example, the Hague Convention—

or other remedies. It is missing the point that, many times, the 

only way to locate a missing child is with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Interpol, and other law enforcement 

agencies. Unless a parent is extraordinarily wealthy, they certainly 

can’t have their own private investigation of where their child 

might be located. 

And so it is a situation, as we believe it is in Japan at this moment, where if a parent engages in criminal prosecution in order 

to have the ability to locate their child, by definition, they will have 

lost the opportunity to use the civil remedies, which are being touted as being the most responsive. 

One of my colleagues—and in advance of this testimony, I had 

an opportunity to reach out to colleagues of mine who practice in 

this area as I have, and ask them their issues and concerns. And 

in addressing the issue in Japan, one of my colleagues, David 

Blumberg, who practices in Glendale, Wisconsin, said the following, 

and I think it is entirely appropriate for where we are today.

‘‘The truly scary part of this whole question is that, because in 

this case Japan was technically a participating country to the 

original promulgation of the Hague Convention, if their legislature ratifies the Convention it will automatically go into force 

between the United States and Japan, even if nothing is done 

to set up effective enforcement processes or to change their 

legal system. In my view, such an eventuality could make our 

problems with Mexico or Brazil look like idyllic strolls in the 

park.’’

In fact, I agree with my colleague, and must indicate that my 

testimony would be that the ratification of the Hague Abduction 

Convention in Japan has to be considered now illusory at best, and 

deceptive at worst. The April 17, 2013 article in Japan Times described the situation and said what international family lawyers already know, and that is that Japanese authorities have repeatedly 

stressed that in any case where an unsubstantiated claim of domestic violence is voiced, the children will not be sent back ‘‘regardless of the Convention.’’

Japanese family courts, as that article went on to propose, have 

seen an exponential jump in reported cases, going from, in 2001, 

409 reported cases, to 1,985. Now, those are cases in which a parent has the temerity to actually file something in the family court 

in Japan which, as my written testimony provides, is a fruitless application. There is no alternate remedy. 

The enabling legislation has demonstrated that, as a practical 

matter, there are significant obstacles to the reciprocal protections 

upon which the other 89 treaty partners, and most importantly our 

American judges, are expected to rely. See, American judges are 

going to be told that the Hague Convention is in effect between the 

United States and Japan when they assess applications for international access. They will believe, and they will follow the Convention here, returning American children to Japan when there is an 

application made here. 

40

But more importantly, when there is an application for access to 

visit a parent in Japan, they will be told that Japan is a signatory 

to the Hague Convention, and therefore when they assess risk they 

should permit that removal when, truthfully, as it stands right 

now, there is no reasonable expectation that a child under the current circumstances will be returned. 

If this were an accession case, if this were a situation in which 

we were talking about a country where we had the ability, as the 

Ambassador referenced in her testimony, the ability to review their 

processes and to assure that there is reciprocity, then we would 

clearly have to take time in order to do that. That situation is one 

that American judges are going to have to know is a situation in 

force. 

In listening to the testimony of the Ambassador, one of the 

things that struck me was the colloquy that occurred with the 

member from Rhode Island in addressing the decisionmaking process, and I believe that the Ambassador and the member both 

agreed that decisionmaking in some of these areas are above their 

pay grade or level. 

I respectfully must say that I believe that the decisionmaking 

process with respect to this issue is in this body, because the client 

for the Ambassador is not the left-behind parent. It is the diplomatic status of the United States of America which, as she continued to repeat, is a broad, systemic sort of issue. 

As someone who has practiced in this area for 20 years, the only 

people watching the shop on the individual needs and the potential 

redress for American children in parents is found in the Congress 

of the United States. The legislation that is being proposed provides extraordinary tools which we presume will be utilized well by 

the executive branch and by the Department of State. Nothing that 

the Ambassador said gave us any reason to believe that our confidence could not be placed in utilizing those tools properly. But it 

is ridiculous to assume that you can negotiate with countries and 

not have any possible level playing field in doing so. It makes no 

sense. 

And in this status of the legislation that has been proffered, you 

have a range of possibilities that, frankly, provides the genuine opportunity to sit down with countries like, for example, Pakistan, 

where you have a common law based Sharia court system where 

the judges have been indicating that they want an opportunity to 

sit down and seek bilateral agreements. 

The Ambassador has referenced, both in this testimony and in 

her prior testimony, that quiet diplomacy is used in the return of 

these children. In fact, there is not much that can be said other 

than ‘‘Please, oh, please.’’ Ultimately, in addition to the strong and 

positive diplomatic work, what has to happen is the governments 

abroad have to be sure that this is, in fact, an issue that is taken 

quite seriously. 

One of the concerning aspects of the Ambassador’s testimony—

and frankly, I think it reflects my experience as well—is the belief 

that there is a difference between the crime of international parental abduction and the human rights concerns that were referenced 

by other pieces of legislation. Demonstrative of this is, as it is contained in my testimony, the case of Christopher Dahm. 

41

Christopher Dahm had no choice, because of the way that the 

law is structured in the UAE, but to file criminal charges. To the 

credit, the United States Attorney in Miami initiated prosecution 

and, for the first time, indicted not only the abducting mother but 

the abducting grandparents who were as co-conspirators in that 

process. 

However, once that was done, the ability to criminally prosecute 

that case fell into, very frankly, disrepair. Mr. Dahm had to continually ask for reports, for assistance in the location of his child. 

Eventually, we requested a private meeting for the second time 

after 21⁄2 years had gone by with no action. Let me say that again. 

Two and a half years. 

Meeting with the United States Attorney now assigned to the 

case, the second, asking for the FBI agents to be there—they 

weren’t—and then being in a situation in which the U.S. Attorney 

on the case indicated that they didn’t know who the FBI agent assigned was, they had no idea whether the child was still in the 

United Arab Emirates, they could not provide an explanation as to 

the response of the judge to the extradition request, or to the pickup on the red order. 

When this issue was raised, and we requested that the FBI agent 

be produced for the meeting, we were told that there was none assigned at that time. Finally, the young Assistant U.S. Attorney on 

the case said, ‘‘Well, I think that the pictures we have of the child 

are all from,’’ and then she went on to describe the location, at 

which point my client starts to cry, because he has not seen his 

daughter for 3 years, and he says—and I indicated, ‘‘Do you mean 

to tell me you have photographs in the file that this parent hasn’t 

seen?’’

As it turns out, the Assistant U.S. Attorney didn’t know who had 

taken the photographs and under what circumstance. But the point 

is that on non-Hague cases in particular, right now the only aspect 

of being able to raise the criminality of this issue—and I appreciate 

the comments of Mr. Meadows in addressing that issue—is the 

prosecution by the United States Attorneys, who don’t like these 

cases. 

I get that. I understand, as a former prosecutor, that the very 

last thing that they want to be involved with is anything that remotely looks to them like family law. However, I think that the 

idea—and this is how it gets translated. And I am not attributing 

this to the Ambassador, but I think that this is the default feeling. 

‘‘Well, after all, how bad is this really? I mean, the child is with 

the other parent.’’

I have been doing this for over 20 years. I remember the day 

when people said to me that intercountry adoption would have no 

impact on international foreign policy. Well, actually, as it turns 

out, that isn’t the case. And international parental abduction has 

an impact on foreign policy because, while most of constituents 

have no idea what is involved in the decisionmaking process that 

goes on here, and frankly it would boggle most of their minds just 

what all of those moving parts are, what they know is ‘‘Somebody 

took my grandchild and the United States of America is powerless 

to do anything.’’

42

I mean, the folks from the greatest generation who I deal with 

look at me like I am insane. How is it possible we don’t have Marines, never mind sanctions. The fact of the matter is that David 

Goldman’s case and other cases that have successfully used quiet 

diplomacy also used the specter of having a threat behind it. Not 

a punitive threat, but a recognition that American children are important, that the fact that they have been abducted and are not 

being returned in accordance with the rule of law or a criminal 

prosecution, where one is necessary to locate the child, is something that we will not ignore. 

With the fact that the Japanese cases, over one third are American military members who we sent there, it is mind-boggling to me 

that we would actually not consider placing in articulable form the 

potential remedies of the use of a memorandum of understanding 

in those places where it will be effective and will lead to the application of rule of law, and potentially treaty signatory down the 

road. 

I served as a delegate of the United States of America at the 

Hague for the negotiation and the signing of the Protection Convention that was referred. The Protection Convention is not a panacea. We are going to have enough trouble getting it enacted in the 

United States of America, never mind creating a reciprocal relationship that allows for mutual enforcement. 

As the judge in the United Arab Emirates said to me, ‘‘You don’t 

care about these cases. Why would you expect that we would politically go out on a limb to do so?’’ Clearly—and I said it a moment 

ago, but I do think it bears repeating. The place where the decisionmaking that is most protective of the American parents whose 

children have been abducted takes place is not in some office away 

from all of us. It is in the Congress of the United States. 

This bill, for example, would require that Members of Congress 

would know that someone in their district has a pending abduction 

case. For reasons that pass understanding, that provision has been 

opposed by the Department of State on ‘‘privacy grounds.’’

Well, very frankly, the fact of the matter is, I have never met in 

my 20 years of representing cases, particularly involving abductees 

in non-Hague cases, where a parent didn’t want everyone they 

could tell. And it would be much easier to opt somebody out than 

to say—so that a Member would know that they have a pending 

case, so that when they are considering rule of law issues involving 

a country, they know how American citizens in that context are 

being treated. 

Again, it is my privilege to return and to have an opportunity to 

address this subcommittee to address what I consider to be extraordinary issues. I must say, the Japanese situation is a current, immediate danger. It is going to contribute, as we are right now sitting here, to a creation of a safe haven. American judges will not 

know that there is a risk of a child not being returned, because 

they will see the Japanese, appropriately so, as ‘‘signatories.’’

I am hoping that the legislation which provides genuine diplomatic tools will be used, that this body will seek to oversee this 

issue as they should. And if there are any questions that I can answer to enhance that process, I stand ready to do so. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Apy follows:]

43


80801b-1.eps
44


80801b-2.eps
45


80801b-3.eps
46


80801b-4.eps
47


80801b-5.eps
48


80801b-6.eps
49


80801b-7.eps
50


80801b-8.eps
51


80801b-9.eps
52

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Apy, thank you so very much for that very comprehensive and, I think, very incisive look, and for reminding us 

that the accession to the Hague, illusionary and deceitful at best, 

I thought that was a very profound statement. Because my sense 

is that there will be a breaking out of the champagne bottles, 

and—I won’t say euphoria, but there will be an enormous amount 

of celebration. But people will not understand what this might actually portend for the abducted children and their parents, especially those to whom it has already happened. So, thank you so 

very much for that. 

Ms. Philips? 

STATEMENT OF MS. BINDU PHILIPS, MOTHER OF CHILDREN 

ABDUCTED TO INDIA 

Ms. PHILIPS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Good afternoon, ladies and 

gentlemen of the Congress. It is my honor and privilege to testify 

before you today, and I thank you for taking your valuable time to 

hear of my plight. My name is Bindu Philips, and it is my ardent 

hope that my story shall capture your attention today. 

While I have held many roles in life, none has been more meaningful to me than that of motherhood. Twelve years ago, I was 

blessed to be the mother of twin boys, my precious children, Albert 

Philip Jacob and Alfred William Jacob. When my children were 

born, my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, and I made a joint decision that 

I would stay home and be their primary caretaker. 

I was an active and loving mother in every aspect of our children’s life. My children came first in everything I did, and in every 

decision I made. Tragically, my world and that of my innocent children was violently disrupted by my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, in December 2008, when he orchestrated the kidnapping of the children 

during a vacation to India. I would note that the children are 

American citizens and that the children were born in America, 

which is the only nation they identified as home. 

Sunil Jacob worked in the financial industry and was laid off by 

his employer, Citigroup, late in 2008. My ex-husband pressed me 

to agree upon this family vacation to India during the children’s 

winter break. My ex-husband was both physically and emotionally 

abusive to me, and I feared the consequences of refusing him. I had 

seen return tickets for our flight on January 12, 2009, and I had 

every reason to believe that we would be home in a few weeks to 

resume our life in the United States. Had I known what would follow, I would have never boarded that flight to India. 

On reaching India, I was not only physically and emotionally 

abused by my husband, but also by his parents. I was finally very 

cruelly separated from my children with no means to communicate 

with them. I could not bear the separation from my children, and 

on learning that they were admitted to a local school in India I approached the principal, requesting that I be allowed to see my children, and I was granted permission. 

As soon as my ex-husband learned about this, he transferred 

them to another school and gave the school strict orders to neither 

allow the mother or any of her maternal relatives to see or communicate with the children. I contacted the U.S. Consulate in 

Chennai, India for assistance, yet, absent an order granting me 

53

custody of the children, there was little that the consulate could do 

for me. 

I would like to point out that Sunil Jacob’s plan to kidnap the 

children and sequester them in India out of my reach was not a 

decision that was quickly or lightly reached. Subsequent events 

showed how carefully he had planned his actions. 

Unable to communicate with my children, I finally returned to 

the United States 4 months later, on April 9, 2009. I literally came 

home to an empty house. Our residence in Plainsboro was devoid 

of all furniture and possessions, and our cars were gone from the 

garage. While in India, my ex-husband had his three friends strip 

the entire house of everything inside. They took everything, leaving 

me with not a single photograph of my children. He had not paid 

the mortgage on the home, our Plainsboro home, nor the utilities, 

nor the equity line of credit which he had transferred to India and 

left me with additional financial burden. 

Heartbroken and impoverished, I had to start from scratch and 

initially survived on the graciousness of good people. My neighbors 

allowed me to move in with them briefly, and a local church provided me a car. Shortly thereafter, I found employment, secured an 

apartment, and purchased my own car. 

Over the last 41⁄2 years, I continue to uncover information that 

shows how deceptive my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, is. The investigation report from the Plainsboro Police Station showed that he 

had planned the move to India as early as March 2008. He had 

communicated his intentions to the principal of the children’s elementary school without my knowledge. In November 2008, 1 month 

prior to the trip to India, Sunil Jacob had obtained a status for him 

and the children known as OCI, overseas citizen of India, that 

would allow him and the children to stay for an extended period 

of time in India, since the children are American citizens. 

Sunil Jacob, an American citizen, deceptively abducted my American citizen children and is staying in India, out of my reach and 

that of the Hague Convention indefinitely. Please note that India 

does not honor dual citizenship. I came to know that he has two 

software firms in India, and recently got information that he is the 

owner of a resort in India that was registered in 2007. That was 

when we were still married. I also came to know that he is remarried. Very recently, Sunil Jacob’s family member confirmed with 

the Plainsboro Police that the separation of the children from me 

was planned well in advance. 

Frustrated but determined, on May 14, 2009, I filed a petition 

with the Superior Court of New Jersey for the custody of our children. Sunil Jacob tried to delay the matter by arguing that the 

U.S. did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, but the American 

courts, both at the Superior Court and appellate levels, have held 

that jurisdiction was indeed proper in the Superior Court family 

part. My ex-husband was in contempt of the court order granting 

me parenting time over the children’s winter break, although he 

participated in the hearing over the phone. The flight information 

was conveyed to Sunil Jacob by the U.S. Consulate, my American 

attorney and me. 

The honorable New Jersey Superior Court granted me residential 

and legal custody of the children. The Plainsboro Police and the 

54

FBI have issued arrest warrants against Sunil Jacob. Please note, 

in 2007, while Sunil Jacob was working at Citigroup, he was involved in an unknown incident at his office that resulted in an FBI 

inquiry on him. 

It is significant that Honorable Barry A. Weisberg, judge of the 

Superior Court family part in New Jersey, not only granted me sole 

custody of the children and demanded their immediate return to 

the United States, but also said that Sunil Jacob must comply with 

a psychiatric evaluation and risk assessment upon return of the 

children. Clearly, Judge Weisberg, an experienced jurist in the family part, felt that Sunil Jacob’s conduct was evident of a man who 

was disturbed. 

I fear for the safety of the children, and their emotional wellbeing, in their father’s care. Despite having kidnapped our children, Sunil Jacob filed for custody of the children in the Indian 

courts. The case is currently pending at the Honorable Supreme 

Court of India. In addition to wrongfully keeping the children from 

me, Sunil Jacob has thwarted every effort I have made even to 

speak to my children and say that I love them. 

Beyond the kidnapping, Sunil Jacob continues to file false cases 

against me and my family in India, and is brainwashing the children against their own mother. He believes that if the campaign 

of harassment becomes too much for me to bear, we will back away 

from the quest to regain custody of my children. 

He must learn that this will not happen. He must be held accountable for his actions. I have put everything I have in my mission to be reunited with my children. I have rebuilt myself financially and made a viable career path for myself. I have made a new 

home for my children to return to, as I was forced to sell the marital home to satisfy the debts my ex-husband created. 

It must be remembered that America is the children’s home. It 

is where they were born. The children went to school in America, 

in the culture that they love. They must be brought home to the 

American soil. I implore the Congress to assist me in righting the 

wrongs that have been done to me and to my children by my exhusband, Sunil Jacob. Every day I awaken with the 

heartwrenching reality that I am separated from my children 

whom I love more than anything else in this world. 

I have done everything I can think of in this nightmarish situation, and I will never give up on my children. Yet I am here because I can no longer fight the good fight on my own. I respectfully 

request you, the Members of Congress, to help me make my voice 

heard in a way that shall be meaningful and allow me to be reunited with my children, who need the love and the nurturing of 

their mother. 

Please help me to put an end to the nightmare that Sunil Jacob 

has created for my family. Please help my precious children and 

me. I do not want to know, and cannot imagine, a meaningful life 

without them. Please act, not just for the benefit of the two innocent children and their brokenhearted mother. Please think of all 

the other children and parents caught in similar nightmarish situations due to hostile-minded parents who abduct the children to 

overseas nations. 

55

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for hearing my humble 

and fervent plea during your otherwise pressing schedules. I shall 

always be grateful for the time and the opportunity to share my 

story and that of my children. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Philips follows:]


80801c-1.eps
56


80801c-2.eps
57


80801c-3.eps
58


80801c-4.eps
59


80801c-5.eps
60


80801c-6.eps
61


80801c-7.eps
62


80801c-8.eps
63


80801c-9.eps
64

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Philips, thank you so very much for that very 

moving testimony. We are here because we want to be here. When 

someone says that they don’t have the time, they have stated not 

a fact but a priority. 

And the idea behind not just this hearing, and the series of hearings that we have had to build the case, to have cases that have 

failed because civil remedies proved to be ineffective and inadequate, is that we need to take it to the next level. Reasonable people, a reasonable man or woman, would say, ‘‘Okay, if that didn’t 

work, what else do we have? What other tools might we put into 

that toolbox?’’ And that is what the legislation is all about. Because 

there are far too many people just like this very distinguished but 

harmed panel that are not being well served. So, thank you for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Elias? 

STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL ELIAS, FATHER OF CHILDREN 

ABDUCTED TO JAPAN 

Mr. ELIAS. Congressman Smith and distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, my name is Michael Elias and I would like to 

thank all of you once again for this opportunity to share my personal experience involving international parental child abduction 

with you once again. 

From August 2003 to November 2007, I was a sergeant in the 

United States Marine Corps. I am currently employed as a Bergen 

County Sheriff’s Officer in the State of New Jersey. I was stationed 

at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan, from 2004 to 2005, where I met 

my future wife, Mayumi Nakamura. Shortly thereafter, my unit returned to Camp Lejuene, and Mayumi returned to her hometown 

of Saga, Japan. We remained in constant contact, and in late September I received a startling phone call from Mayumi informing me 

that she was 5 months pregnant. 

I was stunned. However, at the same time I was excited at the 

prospect of becoming a father. Therefore, in October 2005, Mayumi 

came to the United States and we were married at an intimate 

ceremony in Rutherford, New Jersey. I then purchased a home for 

us in Jacksonville, North Carolina, and our first child, Jade Maki 

Elias, was born on January 5, 2006. 

In March 2007, I was deployed to Iraq for a 9-month tour of duty 

while Mayumi was expecting our second child. She then moved in 

with my parents in Rutherford, New Jersey, so Mayumi and Jade 

would have full support and the assistance of my family. 

On August 2nd, 2007, my son Michael Angel Elias was born at 

the Hackensack Medical University. During my deployment, 

Mayumi started a relationship with a Japanese national. His name 

was Kenichiro Negishi. He worked as a travel agent in Manhattan. 

Sadly, a few months after my return, Mayumi and I separated, and 

on October 29, 2008 I was awarded joint custody of my children. 

On that day, the judge clearly ordered that the children’s passports, both American and Japanese, be turned over because it had 

clearly been demonstrated that my wife was a flight risk. I felt I 

did everything I could to ensure the safety and well being of my 

children. I was confident that I had the reasonable expectation that 

65

my American-born children would be protected from being kidnapped to Japan. 

Mayumi was an employee of the Japanese Consulate in New 

York City, issuing visas and passports. She used her position at the 

Consulate as a tool to carefully collaborate the kidnapping of our 

children. Mayumi and Kenichiro flew to Chicago with the two of 

my children to obtain illegal replacement passports at the Japanese 

Consulate in Chicago, where she and her boyfriend Kenichiro 

exited the country via Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on December 6, 

2008 with Jade and Michael. I still have in my possession their 

original passports. 

My family and I were horrified and sickened by Mayumi’s actions. We have repeatedly attempted to contact Japanese Consulates in New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, and continue to receive no cooperation whatsoever. Shortly after she arrived in 

Japan, Mayumi contacted me and told me that she had unilaterally 

decided that she would raise our children in Japan. When I explained to her that she had kidnapped our children, she maintained, and I quote, ‘‘It’s not kidnapping. My country will protect 

me.’’

Thereafter, I was awarded full custody of our children in the Superior Court of Bergen County, New Jersey. The judge ordered the 

immediate return of the children to the United States from Japan 

by means of the Hague Convention. Unfortunately, the judge was 

unaware that Japan was not a signatory of the treaty, something 

that Mayumi seemingly understood. 

Since the kidnapping, my family and I have pleaded with 

Mayumi to return our children to the United States, assuring her 

that there was no criminal charges pending. Since January 2009, 

my family and I continue mailing gifts, cards, care packages to the 

children, with no responses or acknowledgement. After numerous 

emails and telephone calls, on January 5, 2010 I was granted the 

privilege to see my children via Skype on my daughter’s fourth 

birthday. Although it was very hard to see my children through the 

monitor, it was very satisfying to see them happy to see me. My 

daughter, Jade, looked at her mother in heartache and said to her, 

ever so softly, something in Japanese. When I asked Mayumi what 

Jade had said, she replied, ‘‘She wants to be with you.’’ The monitor immediately went back, and that was the last time I saw my 

daughter’s face. 

Prior to our final contact on Jade’s birthday, Mayumi assured my 

parents, and only my parents, they would be allowed to visit Jade 

and Michael. In February 2011, my parents flew to Japan with the 

assistance of the United States Embassy in Tokyo, accompanied by 

Congressman Smith, his Chief of Staff, Mary Noonan, and my attorney, Patricia Apy. 

Congressman Smith, along with Ms. Noonan and Ms. Apy, spent 

every waking moment meeting with Japanese officials, trying to 

convince Japan to sign and ratify the Hague Convention. However, 

the Hague is not retroactive, so it would provide no benefit to the 

nearly 400 children abducted prior to the Hague implementation. 

So they urged Japan to prepare a memorandum of understanding 

to accompany their signing Hague which would cover the hundreds 

of pre-existing cases. 

66

They also contacted Mayumi to ask my parents if they could visit 

their grandchildren. However, Mayumi denied any access for it. 

She told the Embassy she would not accept their calls, and she told 

them to go home. While in Japan, my attorney, Ms. Apy, spoke 

with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan, and he informed her 

that the Japanese Government was moving forward with the prosecution of Mayumi. After numerous requests, we had still not received any information about the investigation or prosecution of 

Mayumi’s case until December 2012. 

I received a call from my case worker from the Office of Children’s Issues, Ms. Leah George, informing that she had received information regarding Mayumi’s prosecution. However, she was unable to open the document or read Japanese, so we waited until 

February 21, 2013 for the letter I hold before you today from the 

Saga District Prosecutor’s Office in Japan. 

And it says, ‘‘Notice,’’ and I quote, ‘‘This notice is in response to 

your inquiry regarding the criminal case of violation of the Passport Act. With regard to this case, after conducting necessary and 

sufficient investigation, the prosecutor decided not to institute prosecution. Decision of the non-prosecution was made on October 29, 

2010. If you have any further questions regarding this notice, 

please contact International Affairs Division, Criminal Affairs Bureau or Ministry of Justice, Japan. Yours truly, Takuya Komagata, 

the public prosecutor.’’

The timing on this decision clearly demonstrates the total disregard that Japan has for Americans and our children. This decision was made 2 years ago, and only now I am receiving the outcome? My only hope was that Japan would hold Mayumi responsible for her crimes, but like she so calmly stated, ‘‘My country will 

protect me.’’ And they have. 

Since December 2008, there has been no visual confirmation on 

the whereabouts or the well being of my children in Japan. 

Mayumi had agreed to a welfare visit by the Office of Children’s 

Issues. This occurred a few years ago, and at the last minute 

Mayumi informed the case worker she would meet them at a local 

mall. Mayumi showed up with a photo album of the children that 

was good enough for the case worker. However, it was highly unacceptable for me. 

Right up to this day, no one from the State Department or the 

American Embassy in Japan can say they have seen my children, 

know their whereabouts, and are certain of their well being. 

Mayumi is running the show, and she is being permitted to do so. 

It is haunting to know that my children, along with thousands of 

other children from around the world, will suffer in silence because 

they are afraid to ask about their families who were left behind, 

in fear of disappointing and upsetting their abductor. It appears 

that their fate has already been determined. 

I cannot think of anything more important than the fate of my 

children. What about all the American citizens who have been 

ripped from their homes in this country against their will? What 

about my children? I don’t know how to pick up the pieces and 

move on. My pieces are in Japan, a country that has willingly, 

knowingly aided and abetted the abduction of children from all 

over the world, a country that refuses to prosecute my wife for 

67

crimes that are recognized worldwide as fundamental human 

rights violations. 

Does the word parental in front of kidnapping make it less of a 

crime? If so, for whom? You, or the children involved, the children 

who have been silenced, sacrificed and brainwashed, the very children who have been ripped from their only life they ever knew, the 

family, the love, and now will be programmed to never look back? 

This is what it becomes, not only parental cruelty, it becomes child 

abuse. Can it be Japan has always felt this way, a private family 

mater, and never really looked at it from the eyes of children, my 

children? 

I often wonder when I look in the mirror why I don’t see me anymore. I see a reflection looking back at me, watching me look at 

him. It makes me wonder if this happens to my children. What do 

my children see when they look in the mirror? Will they ever know 

who they really are? Do they think like me? Do they act like me? 

Do they dream with me? What does Mayumi tell them? 

As long as our Government allows Japan to continue to disregard 

our children, the number of parental kidnappings will continue to 

rise. Countless families will suffer the same heartache again and 

again, and Japan and its abductors will remain in control. It is 

time for a change. I have been waiting for 41⁄2, along with hundreds of other parents, some who have been waiting for decades. 

There is not a day that goes by I don’t pray for the return of my 

children. I am depending on Congress an the State Department to 

make that change. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elias follows:]

68


80801e-1.eps
69


80801e-2.eps
70


80801e-3.eps
71


80801e-4.eps
72


80801e-5.eps
73


80801e-6.eps
74

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Elias. Thank you for your 

service to our country in Iraq. And there are some folks that stayed 

back from the Office of Children’s Issues, and I do hope they will 

take your letter back. Because I had asked while I was in Japan, 

asked it at hearings, if we were pressing the prosecution of your 

wife for the passport fraud, among other things, what was the investigation? And I am wondering if we ever got a response back, 

and if not, why not. And to realize that a decision made on October 

29, 2010 was not conveyed to us, the U.S. side, and to you for so 

long, is absolutely unconscionable. 

And leaving every other issue aside, that kind of nonresponsiveness suggests a relationship with an ally that is not what it purports to be. So we will follow up on this, and I do hope you folks 

will take back that letter and check into that, because that is 2 

years. 

Mr. Bower? 

STATEMENT OF MR. COLIN BOWER, FATHER OF CHILDREN 

ABDUCTED TO EGYPT 

Mr. BOWER. Thank you, Chairman Smith and honorable committee members. Thank you for allowing me to be here today to 

testify in front of you. 

My name is Colin Bower. And I am here today for one reason: 

To ask the U.S. Government to please stop giving Egypt billions of 

dollars until they release my two American, kidnapped children. 

David Goldman and the respected chairman can attest to the fact 

that this has worked before. And I think that, once you have heard 

the facts in this testimony, you will be compelled to agree that we 

can’t continue to blindly fund a state that has sponsored, aided and 

abetted crimes against not only Americans, but defenseless American children. 

In the way of background, despite my having sole legal custody 

of my sons, Noor and Ramsay, they were kidnapped from the 

United States to Egypt in August 2009. Today’s testimony marks 

the second time in the past 2 years I have testified in front of this 

honorable committee. Meanwhile, my boys remain illegally held in 

Egypt, as do 20-plus other American children, including Blake 

Cleveland, whose father just called me yesterday. All in danger, 

suffering child abuse and having their human rights compromised. 

To these children, their parents, and to Noor and Ramsay, when 

you watch or read this, please know that you are in my prayers, 

and it is my sincere hope that this testimony leads to the U.S. Government acting to bring each and every one of you home. 

Year after year, the U.S. Government sends billions of taxpayer 

dollars to the Government of Egypt with the U.S. Department of 

State using waivers under the guise of national security to get 

around conditions Congress tries to put on the aid. As to whether 

Egypt deserves this aid, please note some of their behavior since 

2009, when my children were abducted, during which they continued to receive their annual billion-plus dollar stipend. 

They have engaged in state sponsored crime by aiding and abetting the kidnapping and illegal detention, child abuse, of at least 

two American children. They provided the false passports and 

transportation for the kidnapping, and they have abetted the kidVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
75

napper through ongoing protection. They have directly threatened 

U.S. national security. They issued false Egyptian passports for the 

purpose of committing a crime in the United States. And for nearly 

4 years, they have refused to respond to formal requests from the 

U.S. Government for information around how or why these passports were issued. This is in direct contravention of the bilateral 

mutual legal assistance treaty. The Government of Egypt has refused to acknowledge the Hague Convention principles, or to commit to joining the Convention, and they continue to regularly commit flagrant human rights violations. 

If supporting this country without conditions is American foreign 

policy, then American foreign policy isn’t working Not only are we 

not getting what we pay for, Egypt has thumbed its nose at real 

reform and at our leaders. I have seen my boys less than a handful 

of times since they were taken. Each visit was in Egypt, and each 

was attended by a large band of Egyptian relatives and government security personnel who watched the boys’ every move, scrutinized the boys’ every word. The boys were understandably anxious, 

and they behaved unnaturally. 

My last visit with them was in January 2012. Both my mother 

and myself, and the U.S. Embassy personnel who attended this 

meeting, noted that it was clear the boys wanted to interact with 

me. They wanted to be with me. And that is precisely, I believe, 

the reason why Mirvat el Nady, their mother, has forbidden me 

any contact with them since that time. 

I practice one-way communication in the form of posts that I 

send to them on a committed Facebook page every week. It is all 

I can do. 

In 2010, I fought for and won an Egyptian court order allowing 

me to visit my children regularly. I have made eight separate trips 

to Egypt to see my boys with no success despite this order. On 

these trips, I sat alone in a park with bags full of letters, toys, 

magazines, sports equipment, other mementos, waiting 6 hours 

hoping to see, speak with and hold my boys again. They were never 

brought to these visits. 

I have been forced to retain new counsel in Egypt at the behest 

of the State Department with no recourse. I don’t know when I will 

see them again next. I don’t know if they will ever come home. All 

I know is that I will never stop fighting. 

It is important to note that the el Nady family has direct ties to 

the Egyptian Military. They started the only private sector yeast 

factory in Egypt in 2005 through a company called EGYBELG. 

Like the production and distribution of all Egyptian necessities, 

this remains under the control of the Egyptian Military. The ties 

between the el Nady family and the military were strong under the 

Mubarak regime, and they have persevered into the Morsi regime. 

The el Nady family has been allowed to ignore both Egyptian and 

U.S. court orders, and refused communication with me, U.S. Embassy personnel, and the Good Intentions Subcommittee, which is 

a committee which includes senior Egyptian officials appointed to 

address issues specific to American children who have been abducted to Egypt. 

The majority of U.S. aid is directed to the Egyptian Military, 

which has been the bedrock of the Egyptian side of our bilateral 

76

relationship since the Camp David Accords in 1978, and the U.S. 

Government has seemingly served at the pleasure of the Egyptian 

Military, apparently not wanting to upset the status quo since the 

kidnapping. 

Now, this is not to say that the U.S. Government has not made 

substantial efforts on behalf of Noor and Ramsay. On the contrary, 

pleas for Noor and Ramsay’s return have been made, both face to 

face and in writing, by many senior officials in our Government, including the Vice President, two Secretaries of State, the Attorney 

General, two U.S. Ambassadors to Egypt, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and ranking members of House committees and subcommittees. 

In Congress, resolutions calling upon Egypt to return Noor and 

Ramsay passed in both the House—thank you, Mr. Chairman—and 

the Senate, including through this committee. Further, as the 

chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now-Secretary of State John Kerry, said, his last conversation with President Mubarak was what he called a half-hour shouting match on 

this issue. His call to President Mubarak, and his call on President 

Mubarak to return the two boys, was to no avail. 

Secretary Kerry has continued to focus on this issue directly at 

the highest levels in his dealings with Egypt since he has become 

Secretary. Yet, I can’t tell you where my boys are, when I will see 

them again, or when or if they will ever come home. Since 2009, 

these pleas from the U.S. Government have been made directly to 

former President Mubarak, current President Morsi, the Supreme 

Council on the Armed Forces, SCAF, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Egyptian Minister of Justice, and other various 

Egyptian ministers and leaders. 

I remain incredibly grateful for all the assistance of all U.S. officials involved, all Members of Congress involved, the chairman of 

this subcommittee, as well as Secretary Kerry, in their sustained 

attention to bringing home Noor and Ramsay. 

Despite all of this, the Government of Egypt has been completely 

nonresponsive. They have refused to give the location of the children. They have refused to allow welfare visits with the children. 

They have refused to abide by the terms of MLAT. They have refused to enforce court orders. They have refused to acknowledge 

the rights of Noor and Ramsay. They have refused to return the 

children. They, along with the el Nady family, continue to aid and 

abet a wanted felon. 

And this nonresponsiveness has gone entirely without consequences. In fact, the United States has rewarded Egypt during 

this time by continuing to send them billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and acting as if it is business as usual. The State Department 

has simply said, in a TV interview recently and in private, that our 

relationship with Egypt is complicated, and there are other important issues on the table. 

I have to ask the basic questions: What is more important than 

the safety of our children? What message are we sending to the 

perpetrators of crime against American children when we continue 

to support the perpetrators, unchecked and without consequences? 

Obviously, as Noor and Ramsay’s father, I am devastated. But as 

77

an American, I am appalled. The inability of Mirvat el Nady to responsibly parent is outlined in our divorce judgment. 

It is also outlined in more detail in the House Resolution 193, 

which includes analysis from various mental health and other professionals who evaluated Mirvat el Nady during the divorce proceeding and recommended that she receive inpatient care. I don’t 

want to disparage the boys’ mother in this forum, but the text in 

this resolution is chilling, as are the implications of allowing an 

unfit parent to watch over Noor and Ramsay in such a volatile social, political and religious environment such as exists in Egypt 

today. 

Obviously, a fit parent would never have kidnapped her children, 

alienated them and forced them to be estranged from their legal 

guardian, myself, a healthy father who provided for them and simply loves them more than anything else in this world. The combination of the instability of Mirvat el Nady, the instability in Egypt, 

and the nature of the recent events at the marathon in my hometown of Boston make my stomach churn with fear for the underlying safety of my boys. I am literally scared to death to whom she 

is outsourcing the parenting or mentoring of my children, what 

they are being taught, how they are being treated. 

What will be their future if I am not able to protect them, if their 

government has forsaken them for other important issues? Will 

they be led down a dark and mortal path? To Ambassador Jacobs’ 

point earlier on, I don’t see how this is any less terrible than trafficking. I don’t see the difference. I actually cannot bring myself to 

articulate my fears on this front. All I can say is I pray my Government will change tack and do what is necessary to help me protect 

my boys before these fears become a full, or even a partial, reality. 

There are many things we can do immediately to protect our 

children. With regard to Egypt, not surprisingly, several include 

withholding U.S. and U.S.-controlled financial assistance pending 

certain actions. Of course, I understand the de facto services contract we have with Egypt, which is the most populous and strategically important Arab State. But I have to say, when one side kidnaps your children and ignores your leader, I say all bets are off. 

We have to start holding Egypt accountable. It is not a question 

of applying financial pressure to influence their politics, but of 

doing the right thing for us as Americans, to protect our citizens, 

to protect our children, and to protect our own moral credibility. 

I have some recommendations, Mr. Chairman. The first recommendation regards prevention. I think we need better controls 

in place to protect against the unlawful removal of our children to 

foreign countries. This includes better checks at the point of departure by Homeland Security and agreements with foreign carriers. 

Prevention is the easiest way to help cure and protect our children 

from being subjected to what is very much a nightmare. 

In the case of Noor and Ramsay, for example, Mirvat el Nady 

kidnapped my children despite the following flags: The boys were 

providing Egyptian passports in false last names. These Egyptian 

passports had no U.S. entry visas, leading to the obvious observation that my boys were in the United States under another, legitimate, auspice. These Egyptian passports were issued in a family 

name different than that of el Nady, therefore providing no connecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
78

tion between the children and the kidnapper. The kidnapper had 

no U.S. court or other documentation denoting her legal standing 

to be with the children. The airline tickets were purchased at the 

ticket counter, in cash and one way. The National Transportation 

Safety Board and airlines operating in the United States need to 

be held responsible for failing to act on any and all of these flags. 

Failure to do so is an inexcusable breach of security and, frankly, 

remains a huge risk to our children. 

Law enforcement. The FBI just did not act quickly enough to 

gather information tied to this crime, including identifying those 

who aided and abetted. This evidence, primarily email records, was 

deleted by the time the FBI started looking more deeply into this 

matter. If they had moved with the requisite urgency, further leverage could have been brought against those responsible, which 

could have aided in the return of the boys. Further, neither have 

the FBI been aggressive or committed enough in finding those that 

are aiding and abetting this fugitive and bringing them to justice. 

The enforcement of existing treaties. Because Egypt provided 

false passports for the purpose of committing this crime in America, a technique used in multiple terror attacks against our country, they must be held accountable to the MLAT agreed to by both 

our countries to protect our citizens from crimes just like this one. 

We need to see the MLAT enforced, the extradition of Mirvat el 

Nady and her co-conspirators, before we provide ongoing meaningful financial assistance to Egypt. 

Probate orders. We must tie U.S. financial aid to Egypt’s agreement to recognizing their existing probate orders involving custody 

decisions. We have acted in that capacity in the United States, and 

I believe that we should act the same way, and the country harboring the fugitive should issue a mirror order consistent with that 

preexisting order. 

Human rights and the Hague Convention. We have to tie U.S. 

financial aid to Egypt’s demonstration of commitments to human 

rights, including the rights of children, as evidenced by acceptance 

generally of the terms of the Hague Convention, adherence to the 

probate orders mentioned above, as well as Egypt’s ultimately becoming a signatory to the Hague. In abduction cases, this can be 

sequentially evidenced by immediate wellness visits, normalized 

parental visits, and, where probate orders exist, by the immediate 

return of the children to their rightful home in the United States. 

Sixth, preclusion of blanket waivers. When Congress ties U.S. aid 

to protections for human rights and other like measures, neither 

the U.S. State Department nor the White House should be able to 

toss aside these congressional conditions via general waivers under 

the cloak of national security. Often, these congressional measures 

speak to the heart of our national security, including the protection 

of our children, which I consider to be our national treasure. 

Seventh, freeze Egyptian assets in the U.S. In conjunction with 

tying aid to Egypt to specific measures, Congress should similarly 

freeze Egyptian assets held in the United States pending compliance with these measures. 

And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a report by the 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to conduct a 

study focusing on the issue of all child abduction in Egypt, includVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:16 Sep 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\050913\80801 HFA PsN: SHIRL
79

ing the role of the Government of Egypt in the abduction and the 

ongoing abetting of the abductors. 

Mr. Smith and other committee members, I thank you for the invitation to speak today, for your attention to my testimony, and for 

your consideration of this most important of issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bower follows:]


80801d-1.eps
80


80801d-2.eps
81


80801d-3.eps
82


80801d-4.eps
83


80801d-5.eps
84


80801d-6.eps
85


80801d-7.eps
86

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bower, thank you very much not only for the 

very moving testimony, but also for those very significant recommendations, including the last one, the GAO. We will follow up 

on all of those, and the red flags that you referenced, I think, were 

telltale signs. 

Mr. BOWER. Absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. And all were missed. 

Mr. BOWER. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. So thank you. 

Mr. BOWER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goldman? 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GOLDMAN, FATHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO BRAZIL 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Good afternoon. I am David Goldman, and I am 

honored and privileged to be here today, and I thank you for having me. And thank you for recognizing the fact that there is a tragic issue upon us, and hopefully we will be able to figure out a way 

to get you the support that you need from your colleagues, across 

the aisle and on your side of the aisle. 

And I think that is what we really need to do here, is create a 

movement. It is imperative that we don’t continue to have parents 

that just suffer on a daily, on a moment-to-moment basis, just looking for any second of relief from the pain that is constantly searing 

in them. 

I first would like to just point out a couple of things that I heard 

before I go into my testimony. Mr. Cicilline, and I hope I am pronouncing his name correctly, he mentioned the fact that often 

times that these abducting parents are actually fleeing from an 

abuse case. 

Well, more often than not, these abducting parents create an alleged abuse to keep or thwart the return of the child, even after 

maybe months of years of custody disputes within this country, 

when there is not one evidence or report of abuse, which is very 

alarming in the fact that that is like a front and center loophole 

in the Japanese acceptance of their signing onto the Hague, is that 

if there is abuse, the child stays. So that is basically opening the 

door for any parent to come and say, ‘‘I am abused,’’ and the child 

never returns. That is very alarming, and that is a big red flag in 

my assessment. 

As well, Mr. Meadows mentioned that we are a global society, 

and in this global society we are going to have companies that are 

working with each other. Johnson and Johnson is working with 

Brazil, all these airlines and what have you, and there are going 

to be marriages. There is going to be love; there are going to be 

marriages. And in our own country, the divorce rate, unfortunately, 

is greater than 50 percent. You put two cultures together, and they 

are going to have issues as well. 

And the rate of abductions is growing at an alarming, exponential rate, and we really need to address this. And thank you, 

again, for holding this hearing, and for you recognizing the importance of this issue. 

The tools that we keep talking about that Ambassador Jacobs 

didn’t seem to favor, more often than not if we do have them in 

87

our toolbox, just knowing that we do have them to use would be 

enough for these countries to return our children, especially if we 

start to use the tools, as are pointed out initially in the Sean and 

David Goldman Abduction Prevention and Return Act. 

There is a list right here, and it starts out with a private demarche, an official public demarche, a public condemnation. And 

they can see, ‘‘Uh-oh, we are getting to the big ones. They are using 

them. Let us get these children. This is a thorn. We don’t need 

these children. They are not ours.’’

We are not asking, Americans are not asking these countries for 

a favor. We are expecting them to abide by the rule of law. And 

I keep hearing about these delays and these stall tactics, and somebody mentioned Article 13(b), grave risk, and I had to really point 

that out. That is the biggest misuse of a denial to return a child. 

Grave risk is, in fact, an abuse or a hostile situation that that child 

would be returned to, not because the abducting parent had been 

allowed to delay and obfuscate the court system in the country 

where they had kidnapped the child for so long that the court could 

now say, ‘‘It is a grave risk to return the child back to its home 

state, back to its habitual residence, back to the competent court 

of jurisdiction, because our courts have been delayed for so long 

that the child is now settled, to return them back to their home 

where they were abducted would be a grave risk, because it would 

disrupt the children’s life,’’ as they were supposed to return that 

child within 6 weeks of the abduction. 

So to use that, and these judges that use that so often, saying 

the child has settled, that is something that is completely wrong 

and it needs to be addressed, and that Article 13(b) really needs 

to be outlined on what the purpose of it is. 

So I will go back to my written testimony now. 

And I just want to say, my beginning is, I understand what these 

three parents are going through. I walked in their shoes for 51⁄2

years. I did live in a world of despondency and desperation, with 

that searing pain through my entire being. Everywhere I turned, 

I did see an image of my abducted child. Sleep was hard to come 

by, and never restful. If I smiled, I felt guilt. When I saw children, 

whether it was in a store, a park, on television, anywhere, it killed 

me. It killed me. It was too painful. For the longest time, I couldn’t 

be around my own family members because they had children. I 

couldn’t be around my nieces and my nephews, it was too painful. 

‘‘Where is my son? Where is my child?’’

He had been abducted. He was being held illegally. He was being 

psychologically, emotionally, and mentally abused. I needed to help 

him. I needed to save him. He needed me, his father. It was our 

legal, our moral, our God-given right to be together as parent and 

child. I did everything humanly possible, leaving no stone 

unturned, but for so many years the result remained the same: My 

son, as these parents’ children, remained kidnapped, abducted, in 

a foreign country. They are not home with them. And it is a crime. 

Every second, every day, the crime continues. 

Finally, after Congressman Smith, who is chairing this hearing 

today, became directly involved with my case, he traveled to Brazil 

with me on multiple occasions. Sean and I were reunited after a 

nearly 6-year separation as a result of his abduction. But it took 

88

not only Congressman Smith’s direct involvement, having meetings 

with high officials in Brazil, but it took worldwide media attention, 

the personal outspoken support of former Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama, and ultimately U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, after the urging of Congressman Smith was saying, ‘‘Hold 

this trade bill. Hold this trade bill.’’

There was a trade bill that was coming up, and Congressman 

Smith kept asking him to hold it. Finally, Senator Lautenberg did 

decide to hold the trade bill to make it possible and help return my 

son. And I must say that countless others also became involved and 

joined in my fight, making it essentially their fight, which made it 

our fight. And I am forever indebted and humbly grateful for every 

ounce of their support. 

Which leads to my last point of this paragraph, why I wanted to 

say all the help I got. I also know it is next to impossible for any 

single left-behind family to garner the support which my family 

was so extremely fortunate to receive. These folks don’t have it. 

But I hope, today, collectively, we will start to change that. We 

move mountains. We all came together. Somehow, it was a perfect 

storm that helped me. But these folks are like I had been, and they 

need help. Their pleas are falling on deaf ears, as mine were for 

so many years. And these are just three of the faces of thousands 

upon thousands. 

This is my fourth time testifying before Congress on this issue, 

and I am disappointed to report that the situation with international child abduction to both Hague and non-Hague countries 

continues to worsen since the return of my son, Sean, December 

2009. This hearing today, by my count, is at least the 20th hearing—the 20th hearing—on this issue, dating back to the 1980s. Yet 

today, over 30 years later, the problem persists. The number of abducted children continues to rise at an alarming rate, and precious 

little is being done about it. 

As I prepared to testify today, I spent time looking back at the 

extensive record of congressional testimony on this issue over the 

years. So many important and meaningful statements have been 

made that I felt the most effective way to communicate my message is to quote these officials and their testimony. 

I would like to start with a brief quote from Congressman Walter 

Jones of North Carolina from a session on the House floor when 

my son Sean’s case was being discussed which I believe accurately 

sums up the issues we are here to discuss today. Congressman 

Jones said, ‘‘The world should be about bringing families together.’’ 

Simple. And he is absolutely correct. Let us work together to bring 

more children home and more families together. These American 

children, left without a voice as a result of their abductions, they 

deserve better. They don’t have a voice. We are their voice. 

The following is a quote from former Congressman Barney 

Frank, from remarks made at a July 2011 congressional hearing on 

international child abduction. And this is very important. This goes 

again to what we were discussing with Ambassador Jacobs.

‘‘We sometimes hold back in using our legitimate moral authority because we worry about somehow alienating other countries. Now, I want America to be reasonable and fair in its 

dealings with other people, but as a general rule, it does seem 

89

to me that most countries in this world need us more than we 

need them. I don’t want to abuse that, but I think we sometimes assume that we can’t press hard because people will get 

mad at us. A reasonable assessment of what the relationships 

are should allow us to press cases on their merits and not be 

held back by some fear that we will somehow lose influence.’’

That was from Mr. Frank, very profound and still to this day 

very pertinent and relevant. 

Now I turn to the remarks made by Ambassador Susan Jacobs 

at that same hearing.

‘‘In non-Hague countries we rely on quiet diplomacy, knowledge of local conditions and respect for local customs, and often 

less visible means to try to resolve an international abduction 

case. The Hague Convention,’’ as she said again today, ‘‘remains our best hope of resolving international abductions. It is 

the first subject that I bring up with foreign governments during my travels on behalf of the Secretary.’’

Well, these mechanisms, these quiet diplomacies, while they may 

be effective, we need more. Obviously, these mechanisms used to 

date to return our children are failing. 

We have some statistics here. Over the last 5 years, 2008 to 

2012, over 7,000 American children have been abducted from the 

U.S. I mean, 7,000. If they were all abducted at one time, we would 

have the U.S. forces to go invade wherever they are and bring 

them home. But because there are 500 here, there are 200 in this 

country, 100 in this country, it is not that big of a deal. Mexico is 

a great return, she said? It is not. Five hundred are taken every 

year, and what is the Ambassador to Mexico? His first thing is 

looking at arms, arms control, border crossing, the handful in his 

mind of children aren’t a priority, and they need to be. 

For the calendar year of 2008 to 2010, the State Department reported an increase of almost 3,000 abducted children, yet the number of children—this is one you need to pay close attention to. In 

the last 2 years, there has been an increase of 3,000 abducted 

American children, yet the number of children whose cases are active dropped from 2,800 to 2,400, and are now 1,900. 

So what they are saying is, we have more cases, more children 

and more cases being opened every year, yet the amount of open 

cases is dropping. That does not add up. These figures do not add 

up. And it is in their stat sheet. And we need transparency. That 

is one thing that we asked before. Some of these statistics, they 

don’t show any longer. And we need complete transparency from 

the State Department on all the open cases. 

And these are only the reported cases, and the reported cases 

that they have. We also don’t know exactly what quantifies a report. An agreement between two parents closes a case, or they 

count it as a return? The parent losing the case. I know they close 

cases because the case is lost. The country where the abducting 

parent takes the child decides they are not bringing their child 

home, so they close the case. And then they check that off as one 

less case they are working with. 

90

But in the meantime, that parent is still somehow begging on his 

knees every night, praying for the return of the child, even though 

the state and our country failed them and gave up on them. 

And there are some more stats, but I will go back into what we 

need to do in our State Department as a complete cultural change. 

And nothing short of being extremely bold and principled is going 

to do much to change the status quo and the corresponding playbook for handling international child abduction cases. 

Left-behind parents, especially ones whose children have been 

abducted more recently, often make the mistake of thinking that 

the State Department is competently handling their cases and that 

countries routinely return children as expected. And that is one of 

the things that Ms. Apy said. Judges here, if they look at a country 

and they say they are a signatory to the Hague, when a parent is 

in a divorce or a custody dispute and that parent goes to the judge 

and says, ‘‘I want to go back to, say, Brazil, because that is where 

my family is,’’ and the judge says, ‘‘Okay, Brazil is a Hague country.’’ And the other parent is saying, ‘‘No, they have already said 

they are going to go and they are not going to return my child,’’ 

and the judge is going to say, ‘‘Yes, this is a Hague country. The 

parent can go back, because then they will return them if the child 

is’’—no, it doesn’t work that way. 

So we need to educate our judges as well, and they need to see 

that these countries aren’t abiding by the law and returning the 

children as the Hague Convention requires, which is also a very 

important aside. 

In reality, the State Department and Foreign Services have been 

involved in these cases almost since the founding of America. We 

have always been a country of immigrants, and these issues have 

always existed and been escalated to the State Department. But 

what these parents, and what I failed to appreciate, is that it is 

not incompetence or ignorance that leads to the mishandling of abduction cases, but rather failure to enforce our policy. 

All the things that I was listening to today, the State Department does quiet diplomacy, they pass information, they gather information, they monitor the cases. But there is no advocacy. We 

need an advocate. We need an advocate. We need our State Department to advocate on our behalf. I mean, we do have to find our own 

attorneys, here and in the country of the abducting parent where 

they are taking our children, and we don’t have an advocate unless 

we are our own advocate and we are our own voice, and then we 

have to find ways to hire attorneys, which most of the time we end 

up giving up because these cases drag on. 

Because there is almost a playbook that these abductors have, 

where they can figure out a way to keep having delays, delays, 

delays in the courtrooms, until finally they get a decision that they 

want. And they appeal every turn that looks like they might be losing, or they will just go run and hide, and then the judge will say, 

‘‘Yes, the child is here. Even though they were abducted, the child 

has been here for so long that they are settled. Sorry.’’ And it is 

very, very sad, and it is continuing. 

Here is one from Secretary Clinton. This was to commemorate 

National Missing Children’s Day in May 2011.

91

‘‘We are committed to preventing child abduction and to helping the children and families caught up in these very complex 

situations. Our dedicated staff in the Office of Children’s 

Issues work every day to support families and children at risk. 

We help parents access the tools available to prevent international abductions, such as our Passport Issuance Alert Program.’’

Well, Secretary Clinton deserves credit for addressing this issue, 

but unfortunately the tools her staff has to work with are woefully 

inadequate to bring the majority of these abducted children home. 

Yes, preventing abductions is critical, as Colin pointed out, but we 

cannot give up on these children once they have been taken out of 

the country. Parents don’t have the resources to fight this battle in 

two countries on their own. They need real advocacy. They need 

real action. They need the commitment and the resolve to bring 

these children home, not platitudes and talk about how much we 

care. 

I would also like to share a quote from Bernard Aronson, former 

Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, from his 

December 2009 testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights 

Commission. Mr. Aronson stated that—and this is very key, and 

we touched on this, too—‘‘a diplomatic request for which there are 

no consequences for refusal is just a sophisticated form of begging.’’

The success rate of using the Hague Convention for a left-behind 

parent is abysmally low, and the number of abducted children is 

increasing at an alarming rate. The main reason the Hague is not 

working is that there are no material consequences for abusing it, 

and the U.S. has to do more to change that. 

Publishing a list of non-compliant countries does not create much 

incentive for such countries to change their behavior, and essentially that is all we are doing. We send a list: Non-compliant, compliant, non-compliant, better, almost getting there. What is that? 

That is not going to make a country return our children if they 

don’t want to. 

Now let us look at the cases of thousands of American children 

who have been wrongfully removed from the United States. Could 

the U.S. find ways to put pressure on these countries to honor their 

international obligations? Do we trade with these countries? Do the 

leaders of our Government understand the difference between a 

custody dispute and an abduction? Do they really want to make the 

Hague Convention an effective treaty to minimize international 

child abduction? If the answer is yes, the case of my son can serve 

as a blueprint for what can and should be done. 

Our newly appointed Secretary of State, John Kerry, is intimately familiar with international child abduction, specifically the 

case of Colin Bower’s two children who remain in Egypt. As a U.S. 

Senator, Secretary Kerry authored a resolution admonishing the 

Egyptians for their abduction of Colin’s children, Noor and 

Ramsay, and advocating for their immediate return. He also called 

on all governments to assist in the safe return of children abducted 

from or wrongfully retained outside of the country of their habitual 

residence. 

Once again, the intentions are good, but there is no action to see 

that these children are returned. We should stop talking and start 

92

acting. If we are sincere in our desire, as I believe you are, Mr. 

Chairman, as I know you are, and the rest of us here, if it is really, 

really, really that we sincerely desire to see our children brought 

home to their loving families where they belong, then let us do 

something about it. 

At his swearing-in ceremony in February, Secretary Kerry made 

the following remarks:

‘‘We can protect children as we did in Africa. We can keep students learning even after an earthquake destroys their schools, 

as we did in Pakistan. We can help young girls pursue their 

dreams of education, as we did in Afghanistan and other places 

in the world.’’

Well, that is what the State Department can do, and should do. 

Certainly, American children are no less deserving of protection 

than children of Africa and other countries. Because the problem 

of IPCA is not being addressed in an effective manner, thousands 

of abducted American children and their parents are suffering 

daily. We can, and need, and should do better. 

At a Senate hearing on international child abduction, Vice President Biden, then Senator Biden, remarked:

‘‘The act of taking a child in violation of a custodial order, 

whether across state lines or across international borders, is a 

heinous crime which is extremely heartwrenching, for the parent left behind and for the child affected.’’

These folks are still in office, and their positions have heightened. They should step up. We have now a Secretary of State, we 

now have a Vice President, and we know that they spoke about it. 

They know about these cases. Let us call them to action. Now is 

the time. Now is past the time. That was 15 years ago, and the 

same holds true today. With the passage of time, the only difference between then and now is the names and faces of the grieving parents here today before us telling their stories. These cases 

are different, but all too similar in so many ways. We are failing 

these parents and their abducted children, again and again. 

If Congressman Smith hadn’t traveled with me to Brazil, I 

wouldn’t have been able to see my son after more than 4 years of 

being separated because of his abduction. These cases typically 

drag on for months, which soon turn into years, as the abductor 

creates the home field advantage with endless appeals and delay 

tactics in their home country’s legal system. This is the norm, not 

the exception. These case are abduction cases, and laws have been 

broken. They are not custody cases. 

Right now, as I sit here, Sarah Edwards, a suffering mom whose 

child, Eli—her son, Eli, was kidnapped to Turkey. She sat next to 

all of us, actually, in 2011, pleading for her son’s return. It was a 

black and white abduction case, absolutely unquestionable. If you 

put it in a legal class, 101 Law, abduction, put her case up. Unquestionably that boy was abducted, should be returned. She lost 

her case. She is there in Turkey, right now, as we are here, looking 

to see her son, Eli. 

We failed her. We failed her. 

93

We are not asking for anything other than the rule of law, again, 

to be followed. 

Let us be clear what we left-behind parents and families are asking for. Some people mistakenly believe we are asking our Government to intervene in custody disputes. We are not. All we are asking is that, when our children are kidnapped to thwart a proper 

resolution of custody, the law governing their return to our country 

is upheld. We Americans proudly proclaim that we are a nation of 

law, not of men. But when it comes to the international law that 

deals with children abducted from the United States to other lands, 

a law embodied in the Hague Convention, which our country 

helped convince other nations over the world to adopt, there is no 

rule of law. And the broken lives and broken spirits of left-behind 

parents across American, whom we represent here today, stand as 

a living rebuke to that failure to enforce the rule of law. 

The issue is not whether Ambassador Jacobs and her colleagues 

are trying their best. I have no doubt they are. The issue is that, 

after more than two decades, more than 20 years of failure, Ambassador Jacobs and her colleagues still have no effective tools to accomplish their objective. They are like combat troops sent into battle with no weapons or ammunition. The plain fact is that nations 

who refuse to return America’s children pay no price for defying 

the law, and unless we arm the State Department with the tools 

they need to do their job, and unless nations who break the law 

flagrantly and repeatedly suffer real consequences, nothing is going 

to change. 

Nothing is going to change, and we will have another hearing in 

another year or another 2 years, and there will be a new line of 

faces of parents who are just completely broken, and their kids remain abroad, abducted, psychologically tortured, emotionally battered, and we will be spinning our wheels. Hopefully, we will 

change. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:]

94


80801f-1.eps
95


80801f-2.eps
96


80801f-3.eps
97


80801f-4.eps
98


80801f-5.eps
99

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldman. Thank you for 

being an inspiration, I think, to other left-behind parents that success can be had. But as you said, herculean efforts, even when applied—and Mr. Bowers certainly has had the Secretary of State in 

his corner solidly fighting aren’t always enough. 

What we are trying to do with the legislation is to make a systemic change to empower the diplomats, the executive branch and 

anyone else concerned, who goes country to country, and say that 

this has meaning. You sanction what you care about. If you don’t 

care about it enough to sanction it, that sends a very clear, unmistakable message to an offending country, especially when there is 

a lack of good will on the part of that country. 

So we are trying—and I know you know this, but I think the 

record needs to clearly state it—to make this a country-to-country 

fight, so you don’t have David versus Goliath being replicated time 

and time again for Americans. 

And I do believe, I find it disheartening that the administration 

may not support this. I do hope that, if presented with the bill, 

President Obama will sign it. But it is value added at the very 

least. What is it that they would oppose? Being much more robust 

when we deal with non-Hague countries? Promoting MOUs so that 

we have a mechanism, as well as with Hague countries, to effectuate positive results? 

I mean, as you pointed out, Mr. Goldman, we have had years of 

ineffective results. Reasonable people will then say we need to go 

back to the drawing board and find some ways of fixing it. So I do 

think, and I do hope, I wish—I did mention it, but I will mention 

it even further now. There is a myth that parental abduction is 

somehow not as egregious as other kinds of behaviors. As the author of the trafficking law, and as horrific as that is, this is right 

there, side by side, because parental alienation is a horrible outcome for that child. And of course, it is cruelty to the left-behind 

parent as well. 

So I would hope that that myth would be shattered immediately, 

if it is harbored by the Ambassador or anyone else, about how bad 

parental abduction actually is. It is awful, and those who have suffered from it, as you have done so today, can speak volumes as to 

what——

Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I believe—or I know 

it is in our country—parental abduction within our borders is a 

crime punishable by law. As a matter of fact, most of the Amber 

Alert signs that you see are from one parent, a non-custodial parent in a divorce that takes the child. 

And I know most of these other countries that I have experience 

with, it is a crime punishable by jail time. So when you have domestic parental abduction, it becomes a crime in that country, for 

example Brazil, but when a parent who is a Brazilian national 

takes an American child over to Brazil, all of a sudden it is not a 

crime. And these parents also use the Hague Convention as a double-edged sword, because it is civil and the parent has nothing to 

lose. If they go to the court here, they have a chance of having to 

do a shared custody. If they go back to their country where they 

want to go—for example, I use Brazil, because that is the one I am 

most familiar with—the worst that they feel will happen is they 

100

will get sent back to have a custody hearing in the country where 

they abducted the child from. 

So they figure they have nothing to lose. ‘‘Let me give it a shot. 

I will break this guy. I will break him financially, I will break him 

mentally, I will break him emotionally. I will create a home court 

advantage, and go on and on and on,’’ and the worst that will ever 

happen is they return the child, they return our son, our child, and 

she will have to come back, or he will have to come back, whoever 

the abductor may be, and go through a regular custody hearing. 

So there is no deterrent. There is no deterrent. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, an important point, and anything you 

would like to add. Mr. Meadows did want to come back and ask a 

question or two, if he can get here. He is doing a radio interview. 

In your testimonies, because you have lived this, you have answered most of the questions. And you gave all of us on this committee and other Members of Congress the case histories, if you 

will, of why we have to do more and why we have to do it immediately. 

But Ms. Philips mentioned a very important point, which all of 

you have done, and she says, ‘‘I know that Sunil Jacob feels empowered by the passage of time.’’ I think the sense of urgency, if 

we don’t have it now, we will never have it. So all the more reason 

why we have got to do more in this Congress, this session, within 

months if not weeks, to get this legislation passed. 

So you have given us a lot of ideas. I think the GAO report, all 

those other ideas, Mr. Bower, that you conveyed to the committee, 

we will take every one of them up, look at it, see if we can do something with it. I just would yield to Mr. Meadows, and then anything you want to say in closing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank each one 

of you for your testimony and highlighting this issue, and I do believe that we have got to remain vigilant, but that we don’t continue, Mr. Goldman, just to have hearing after hearing after hearing. Hearings with actions make sense. Hearings with inaction are 

really a waste of time. And so my commitment to the family members here is, we want to find real solutions and a real bipartisan 

way to come up with legislation that gives tools, and actually gives 

them some incentives. 

And so with that, I would like to go to Ms. Apy. If you could 

share, because I know as we were talking earlier and in some of 

the testimony, it sounds like you have got a number of years of experience here. And so if you were the Ambassador at the State Department, what are some of the things that you would like to see 

that would help out in this situation? 

Ms. APY. Well, that is a luxurious question, actually. First of all, 

I believe that using the tool of a memorandum of understanding, 

and using diplomatic means to begin to craft agreements, both for 

Hague countries that are having difficulties in compliance and reciprocity, as well as non-Hague countries, would be number one on 

my list. I know there was reference in the Ambassador’s testimony 

about what she characterized as unsuccessful MOUs involving 

Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, and there is some question about 

whether or not there is actually an MOU involving Egypt. There 

are some access agreements. 

101

But the real issue is that when we have agreements, even like 

in the British agreement with Pakistan, you have a situation in 

which judges that are making decisions know that this agreement 

exists. Parents who are making agreements know that this exists. 

So there is an opportunity to have their behavior, the decisions 

that the court makes, reference this agreement. It changes the 

legal culture. It provides an interim step. 

Being able to not only have those agreements, but then be able 

to say, ‘‘We are serious about this, and if we are not able to do this 

by agreement, we are going to have to tell our judges,’’ American 

judges, for example, ‘‘that a reciprocal agreement does not exist 

right now. That despite the fact that we have entered into the treaty, they cannot rely upon that reciprocal relationship until the following things have been dealt with.’’ That would be one of the first 

things. 

As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, and I think is crucial, 

the partnership between the Congress of the United States, the decisions that you make, and this issue. By knowing who in your district has a pending case, and having a non-defensive response from 

the Department of State with respect to those issues. You should 

know 15 minutes after they get the application that there is a 

pending case in your district, what country is involved, and what 

the issues are. If law enforcement is involved, you should get a list 

so that you know, when you are hearing testimony about dangers 

in these places, about other aspects—that, I think is something 

that lawyers, for example, can’t address in the same way that you 

would be able to. 

Additionally, there has been discussion about having judicial 

training and having other means, which go on in any event, and 

they should continue. But being able to represent that, on behalf 

of the United States of America, there are positions that need to 

be taken with regard to these issues, and having the Ambassador 

who is serving in that capacity go to Pakistan, or the United Arab 

Emirates, or Japan, or other places in Asia—and we haven’t even 

talked about the number of cases there right now, and the number 

of the countries implicated—and be able to sit down and negotiate, 

identify the issues, fine tune those issues for that legal system. 

The other thing is, when our SOFA agreements are being negotiated, our Status of Forces Agreements involving American 

servicemembers, if we are putting them in a country we have to 

ask the question as to what protections will be available for them. 

If it is a country that is non-compliant with the treaty, or if it is 

a country that will not provide them remedies with respect to child 

custody disputes, if we are negotiating a SOFA agreement we have 

to sit at the table and say that. And that is not being said. 

So again, I could warble on. But those are the things that, if I 

were to identify the things that are the most important, that would 

be what I think is the next level of what we are talking about. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And probably what I would ask of you, if you 

could get to the committee, is really how we address the notification process without violating privacy. Because any time that we 

look at this, we have got to look at it in the hands of not only those 

that are well intended, but those that perhaps are not. And so I 

want to be sensitive to the privacy side of that, but yet at the same 

102

time, if you can come up and provide some thoughts on that, since 

you have experienced that on a regular basis, that would be great. 

Ms. APY. And simply enough, for the purposes of your decisionmaking, for example, the information could be provided without indicating names and simply giving you the heads-up that we have 

a pending case that has been filed. Because it has been filed with 

the government. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. APY. ‘‘We have a pending case of an abduction of a child from 

your district out to Country X,’’ giving the parent the opportunity 

to expand on that information. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, what about some piece of legislation——

Mr. SMITH. Will my friend yield on that? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes, I would be glad to. 

Mr. SMITH. In the appropriations cycle in the last Congress, we 

actually put some language together and got it passed in the 

House. It basically said that the Office of Children’s Issues will notify a Member of Congress of an abduction case, but they would 

pre-clear it with the family member, thereby meeting the obligations of privacy. 

It was not accepted by the Senate, watered down to nothingness. 

But why can’t it just be done by OIC on its own? I mean, you don’t 

need an authorization by Congress to ask the parent, ‘‘Would you 

mind if we told so-and-so?’’ Because that parent will then have an 

advocate who will, when he or she travels, when he or she meets 

with delegations, especially on our committee, will say, ‘‘I have 

someone here in my district, and I want to raise that case.’’ And 

then he or she becomes an advocate for them. 

Ms. APY. Well, may I just say, even beyond the advocacy piece, 

which may be within the purview of a parent, the other piece is, 

you are in possession of information and decisionmaking that you 

should know, as you are listening to that information and making 

those deliberations, what the status of those issues are involving 

your district. Without the names of the individuals. You wouldn’t 

have to have that. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Ms. APY. The other issue is, the current reporting requirements 

in the existing legislation provide that you are to be reported to by 

the Office of Children’s Issues and provided an accurate reflection 

of cases that are in existence. And, of course, we have country reports. There have been some changes in the way that information 

has been recently submitted to you. 

I need to tell you that the use of that information in the practice 

of family law is extraordinarily important. The judges hearing 

these cases now, requests for access and other deliberations, rely 

upon it. The fact that it is not being provided now is—I just don’t 

understand. But parents who don’t have the ability or the resources to hire international experts to testify to judges rely on the 

information that is provided to you to educate judges. We heard 

about educating judges. That is how they know. They look at the 

information provided to you in compliance with the existing statute. 

That information, I understand now, we are not having the number of cases in the same way, we are not having—that information 

103

is crucial to American judges to assess risk of removal and to, 

frankly, be able to apply the law, both the substantive law of the 

state as well as, obviously, the Federal law, from both a criminal 

perspective and, certainly, the Hague Abduction Convention. Without that information, it is very difficult for a judge to be a country 

expert on every single country. 

And they rely upon that communication, so I would strongly urge 

that, again, in the legislation that is being contemplated, and any 

other deliberations that you will make, keep in mind that the information that you receive gets disseminated to our judges around the 

country, across the jurisdictions, and it is extraordinarily important 

for them to be able to access it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if we had a congressional liaison that would 

work with these type of cases, to work with some of our other colleagues, to inform them and keep this in the forefront, is that 

something that would be useful? 

Ms. APY. I think it would be extraordinarily useful. I think, to 

the extent that it provides a conduit of information by the body 

that is most familiar, if it is possible to say, with how these individual problems can be worked. For example, we have been talking 

about the role of the Justice Department in the prosecution issues. 

Well, that is DOJ, and that is a whole—that is an area, though, 

that having a congressional liaison could be able to act in the capacity where it isn’t always within the bailiwick of the Department 

of State, very frankly. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. APY. And sometimes that disconnect can mean months or 

years of waiting on the part of parents. Again, having a private 

lawyer make numerous phone calls a day is not a practicable answer for many, many people. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, and it is costly. I mean, as you know, every 

phone call that you make—my time is a lot cheaper, I can tell you. 

And so in doing that, we want to be an advocate and find a way 

to do that. But I thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Goldman, you seemed to agree with what she was saying. 

Would that be fair to say? 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. It is almost like we did have the introduction 

of the Ambassador-at-Large. Anyone who is going to almost be an 

independent liaison or conduit can only help. 

And it is great that Ambassador Jacobs was appointed, but she 

was appointed almost a day before we had another hearing, after 

we already introduced legislation for an Ambassador-at-Large, almost as another reason—remember, I am not a politician. I am just 

a guy who sees what is going on and says it like I see it. Almost 

as if to say, ‘‘We don’t need the legislation with the Ambassadorat-Large now, because we have this new position.’’ And you can 

see, as history is repeating itself, it is failing. So absolutely. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, and I will close with this for our three 

witnesses. As you see areas that, even though none of you to my 

knowledge, are in my district, if you see areas that would be meaningful, please feel free to call our office and call on us for suggestions that you might have. And with that, I would yield back to the 

chairman. I thank you. 

104

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Meadows, thank you so very much for your questions and for your keen interest. 

Just a quick question to Ms. Philips, if I could. Will Sunil Jacob 

be prosecuted in New Jersey for parental kidnapping? Why or why 

not? And you mentioned in your testimony the pre-planning that 

Sunil Jacob put into the abduction, and that the Plainsboro Police 

investigation showed the involvement of three of his friends in the 

abduction. Has there been any legal sanction against the friends 

for their participation in the abduction? 

Ms. PHILIPS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Yes, the Plainsboro Police 

did have two arrest warrants on Sunil Jacob. One is for parental 

kidnapping, and the other is for interference with custody. We have 

Sergeant Blanchard from the Plainsboro Police Station here today. 

And also, they did take actions on one of the friends who was in 

New Jersey. So he was arrested. And what happened later is the 

prosecutor, they had their case open since 2010, and there was a 

Federal arrest warrant on him for unlawful flight against prosecution. When the FBI wanted to execute the prosecution, they requested the U.S. Attorney’s office which held the case for about 11⁄2

years, and then gave the decision over to the Middlesex County 

Prosecutor’s Office. And the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, 

in February 2013, they administratively dismissed the case after 

keeping it open for more than 3 years. And so the Plainsboro Police 

are going to work to file for interference of custody again. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Apy, what do you think of that? Dismissing the 

case? 

Ms. APY. It is certainly not limited to New Jersey. It is a common 

problem. And again, part of it is that this is not the standard case. 

It is not the standard type of prosecution. Some of our U.S. Attorney’s offices are brilliant at it. The U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago, for example, has prosecuted a number of cases. Once a prosecutor knows how to do it and an FBI agency gets used to doing 

it, you find that you have that kind of follow-up. It is like anything 

else. If it is a job we are not used to doing, we kind of—we are not 

as facile at it. 

One of the concerns is the interjurisdictional fight that goes on. 

The United States Attorney, of course, when evaluating these 

cases, as well as the state courts, look at the expense involved. I 

mean, when you are putting together a case to beyond a reasonable 

doubt, you are talking about having to get somebody in India, or 

the witnesses involved. You know, there is that push-back. And 

there is the context that ‘‘Well, this is just a parent. The child is 

not really in danger.’’

It is consistent and across the board, even in the Dahm case that 

I mentioned in my testimony. Here is a situation where orders 

against leaving, the U.S. Attorney indicts, but then they basically 

do nothing on the case and we have to ask them to have another 

meeting, the FBI doesn’t show. When people come in from out of 

state—I mean, it is appalling. And ultimately, I think it is a reflection of the systemic story that you are hearing, and that is a lack 

of understanding that, not only is it an academic rule of law issue, 

it is a crime. 

105

And from the standpoint of deterrence and all the things that 

you all would talk about if we were talking about drug trafficking 

or sex trafficking or other issues——

Mr. SMITH. Child abuse. 

Ms. APY. Absolutely. Deterrence is one of the primary issues. You 

know, if we are not going to take it seriously—and countries know 

what that looks like when we take things seriously—and U.S. Attorneys know that their careers are not going to be advanced on 

a case that is tough if it is not at the priority of those watching, 

then you have to be constantly on it, and you have to constantly 

be asking them what to do next. 

Frankly, the latest movement in the Dahm case came because I 

indicated that I was going to be testifying about the case to this 

body, because I am at a loss as to what we can do to encourage 

and inspire the Department of Justice to be active and supportive 

to the victims of these crimes. And by the way, a footnote on this. 

To get the case queued up before the U.S. Attorney, it has got to 

be a good case. They would have dumped it. It gets dumped quickly 

otherwise. If it has been brought before—and I champion the U.S. 

Attorney in Miami for issuing the indictments they did. No small 

feat. 

But there is a huge reluctance across the board. Getting them to 

do it and keeping on it is extraordinarily important. And again, 

your interest for future hearings, or in your deliberations, or in 

dealing with congressional liaison contexts, would be to partner 

with DOJ and make sure that there is a seamless application of 

these issues. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you 

Ms. PHILIPS. Can I add something? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, please. 

Ms. PHILIPS. Also, the FBI was involved when I sent a letter to 

the President, Barack Obama, in 2009. So they are willing to go 

ahead and extradite my children, but they are waiting for the approval from the U.S. Attorney’s office. And when the prosecutor administratively dismissed my case, like Mr. Ramisar and Mr. Preston Findlay from the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children, they spoke to the right people in the prosecutor’s office 

and gave them the right information, and told them why this case 

has to be open. But they didn’t reopen the case. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Anything else before we close? 

Yes, Mr. Bower? 

Mr. BOWER. I just had one point I wanted to call out a little bit 

more, and it is the issue of financial burden. I think a lot of times 

we are talking about the politics here, and we are talking about 

legislation here. And a lot of times, I know myself, for instance, I 

have been told I need to retain local counsel. And after fighting a 

fight for 31⁄2 years on multiple fronts I will tell you that local counsel, even in Egypt, doesn’t come cheap. And particularly not if you 

are going to get the right kind of local counsel that can stand up 

to the various forces in a country like that. 

And I didn’t know whether or not there were mechanisms for 

USAID or through their funding of certain NGOs locally that might 

be considered or put in place that would allow that financial burden for families like ours to be eased a little bit. And I just heard 

106

reference to it, and I don’t think that we had really talked about 

it. I know I hadn’t before, but I think it is an important issue, and 

I just wanted to bring it up to you before we close, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bower. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. And a couple more things. I am sure we can keep 

going and going, because there are always more issues. One thing 

Ambassador Jacobs said is that she considered sanctions as extortion, and I liked how Mr. Meadows put it, maybe not sanctions, but 

incentives. I mean, if it has to be a play on words to get something 

going, you return our children and here is an incentive for returning our children. Maybe that is how we can get it in somehow in 

a positive way. 

And the other thing that is also disturbing is, she was appointed 

as somebody to monitor and work with these cases solely as her position, and doesn’t see international child abductions as a heinous 

crime. Doesn’t even put them on the same playing field as human 

trafficking and those other things that we have laws about. And I 

think that is quite alarming, too. 

I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I would agree. 

That is why I spoke of the myth that somehow child abduction by 

a parent means ‘‘that child is now in safe hands.’’ It is a terrible 

myth, and the science that even led to the Hague Convention itself, 

the psychological data about what parental alienation does and the 

consequences for that child, it just shatters that myth. So you 

know, the act of abducting puts is just like child abuse. You 

wouldn’t say, ‘‘Well, at least the child is in good hands, even 

though he or she is getting beaten every day by a child abuser.’’ 

And this is a pernicious form of child abuse. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. So I do thank all of you for your testimonies. It will 

be very helpful as we move to markup on the legislation, which I 

suspect will be opposed at least at some level, by the administration, as was every other human rights bill I have ever seen go 

through this body. I exaggerate a little, but that has been true for 

the ones I have worked on. But we will persist, and it will be bipartisan, I can assure you, because there is good buy-in from both 

sides of the aisle on the need to do this now. 

So I thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(107)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

108

f


80801n.eps
109

f


80801m.eps
110


80801g-1.eps
111


80801g-2.eps
112


80801g-3.eps
113


80801g-4.eps
114


80801g-5.eps
115

f


80801g-6.eps
116

Æ


80801h.eps